This is PAGE 1 - press Home to return to Home Page

Truths From Yesterday For Today And Tomorrow

Page 1 Contents -1. Papal Teaching   2. Ecumenical Councils and Vatican II;   3.  Catechism of the Catholic Church

Theologians State, Dissent Is Possible From The Non-Infallible Public Teachings In Faith And Morals Of Popes Because They Can Be And 'De Facto' Have Been Mistaken - The Latter Is A Historical Fact - One Pope Was Infallibly Condemned As A Heretic For Upholding A Heresy

1. WHAT CATHOLICS SHOULD KNOW ABOUT THE SCOPE AND LIMITS OF THE TEACHINGS OF POPES - a non-controversial statement of historical facts - a study in two Parts:

Part A - Three Examples Of Popes Teaching Doctrinal And Moral Errors Publicly;
Part B - The Scope And Limits Of Papal Teaching As Taught By The Catholic Church.

PREAMBLE

Not infrequently we are told that such and such is the 'teaching of the Church'. Now to we Catholics, 'a teaching of the Church', is synonymous with it being 'a teaching of God', and consequently demanding of our ready assent and obedience. Clearly, however, such affirmations are open to both error in their presentation, and to abuse by deliberate misrepresentation. And this, as experience shows, may come not only from uninformed non-Catholics and Catholics, but also from priests, bishops and even from Popes, as for example:
1.  Nestorius, who died teaching the heresy that Our Lady is not the Mother of God, was a bishop;
2.   Photius and Michael Cerularius, who rejected the primacy of the Pope and brought about the Great Eastern schism which persists to today, were bishops;
3.   Luther, the ‘father’ of Protestantism, was a Religious priest;
4.   Jansen, who in the heresy of Jansenism denied free-will, was a bishop; and
5.   Honorius I, who supported the Monothelite heresy, and was condemned post-humously as a heretic, was a Pope (see below for the historical details of this Pope and other Popes publicly teaching error).

So we must always be aware that a person’s office in the Church does not guarantee the orthodoxy of his pronouncements on faith and morals, and since we are obliged, under pain of sin, to reject all that is false and cling to all that is true, we have a duty to make sure that what we assent to is undoubtedly of the Catholic Faith.

From the above cases it is clear that we cannot have automatic certainty of the orthodoxy of the teachings presented to us by anyone, including members of the hierarchy. We will always have to receive them with great caution and only assent to them when we have verified them as true by reference to other sources of information. And this study draws upon history to show us that such a caution is required even in the instance of Papal teachings.

PART A - Three Examples Of Popes Teaching Doctrinal And Moral Errors Publicly

Theologians State, Dissent Is Possible From The Non-Infallible Public Teachings In Faith And Morals Of Popes Because They Can Be And 'De Facto' Have Been Mistaken - The Latter Is A Historical Fact - for example, one Pope was infallibly condemned as a heretic for upholding a heresy.

The content and purpose of this work

The facts expressed in the above paragraph surely urge that we are obliged to understand clearly when assent must given to or withheld from a Pope’s teachings.

Despite its title, this work is non-controversial - reading it will show it is merely a compilation of historical facts and well-established teaching of Catholic theologians

It is stated from the outset that the whole content of this work, and its purpose, is totally devoid of any controversy, or any novelties, which might be contrary to reason or to the teaching of the Catholic Church. It is concerned merely with the publication of an aspect of the Catholic Faith, that Popes in their non-infallible public teachings even in faith and morals can be, and, in fact, have been mistaken. There is a real need for this to be done, because despite its doctrinal correctness being most firmly grounded on the constant teaching of Catholic Church and Her theologians and on irrefutable well-proven historical facts, it is a point nevertheless very poorly known!

The last statement reveals the purpose of this work – to make clear a much misunderstood article of the Divine Catholic Religion, that is, the scope and limitations of Papal infallibility. However, before entering upon any justification for this work, first, the two claims contained in the introductory paragraph, are substantiated:

1.  Theologians state, dissent is possible from the non-infallible public teachings in faith and morals of Popes because they can be and 'de facto' have been mistaken;

2. The latter is a historical fact - for example, one Pope was infallibly condemned as a heretic for upholding a heresy

1.  THEOLOGIANS TEACH THAT POPES CAN AND IN FACT HAVE BEEN MISTAKEN IN PUBLIC NON-INFALLIBLE TEACHINGS OF DOCTRINES OF FAITH AND MORALS

To establish unquestionably this fact we turn to the words of Canon 752, of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, and an officially recognised Commentary on it – "The Code Of Canon Law: A Text And Commentary, Commissioned By The Canon Law Society of America", Ed. J. A Coriden,  (Paulist Press, New York, 1985)

Canon 752 and its officially given understanding:

The Canon states: A religious RESPECT of intellect and will, even if not the assent of faith, is to be paid to the teaching which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops enunciate on faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium even if they do not intend to proclaim it with a definitive act; therefore the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid whatever is not in harmony with that teaching."

Explanation of Canon 752, as given in the official Commentary:

"This canon describes the appropriate response of the Christian faithful to the teachings of the Church … it carefully distinguishes this level of response from that described in canon 750, namely a RESPECT rather than an assent of faith. … the canon speaks of ‘religious respect’ as the proper response to what legitimate church authority teaches in matters of faith and morals. This is a general guideline which incorporates a healthy respect of the acceptance of sound teaching in the Church. It calls for a basic attitude of religious assent based on a presumption of truth and good judgment on the part of the teaching authority. However, SINCE TEACHINGS ARE INCLUDED WHICH ARE NOT INFALLIBLE AND CAN BE ERRONEOUS, the principles of the pursuit of truth and the primacy of conscience still come into play. In other words, DISSENT IS POSSIBLE BECAUSE THE TEACHERS MENTIONED IN THE CANON CAN BE AND DE FACTO HAVE BEEN MISTAKEN. To search for the truth is everyone’s duty and right."  (c.748)

THE TEACHERS MENTIONED IN THE CANON CAN BE AND ‘DE FACTO’ HAVE BEEN MISTAKEN"

These words are undoubtedly doctrinally correct, coming from highly qualified Canon Lawyers: "Commissioned By The Canon Law Society of America." Thus, we are confident then that: "THE TEACHERS MENTIONED IN THE CANON CAN BE AND DE FACTO HAVE BEEN MISTAKEN".

But who exactly is meant by the "teachers" mentioned in the canon, who "can be and de facto have been mistaken in their teachings in matters of faith and morals"? Who exactly are these teachers who can be and have in the past been mistaken?

The canon names the POPE or the college of bishops as the teachers who can be and in fact have been mistaken while teaching publicly doctrines of faith and morals.

Here then is concrete evidence, stated in an official Church Commentary on canon 752, undoubtedly well founded on historical fact, that POPES, while enunciating on faith and morals when exercising the authentic magisterium can be and in fact have been mistaken by including erroneous opinions in their teachings!

Stress is placed on the POPE rather than on the bishops, as being THE teacher who while enunciating on faith and morals when exercising the authentic magisterium can be, and in fact has been mistaken by including erroneous opinions in his public authentic non-infallible teachings on faith and morals.

The reason behind this stress is that, whereas it is generally accepted that ordinary bishops can be mistaken in their doctrinal teachings, it is almost universally, incorrectly insisted on by many Catholics that:

Whatever the Pope teaches today in matters of faith and morals, irrespective of his way and channel of expression, is necessarily the Apostolic Catholic Faith, and demands full assent under the threat of heresy and schism.

The refutation of this erroneous opinion and its replacement by the true position of Papal teaching is then the goal of this exposition.

AN IMPORTANT NOTE - the Church cannot ever err in Her teaching

To pre-empt a possible misunderstanding, that this work is directed to show that the Catholic Church can teach erroneous doctrines of faith and morals, it is stated from the outset that this unachievable end is neither the wish nor the goal of this exposition!

No, the goal has already been attained! The Official Church Commentary, as given above, has unequivocally done the work, this being the establishment of the fact that POPES because in THEIR AUTHENTIC MAGISTERIUM, TEACH not only in an infallible but ALSO IN A NON-FALLIBLE MANNER, CAN AND HAVE BEEN MISTAKEN IN THEIR TEACHINGS IN THE LATTER MODE, AND HAVE ACTUALLY TAUGHT ERROR IN MATTERS OF FAITH AND MORALS.

This then is the whole purpose of this work: nothing, controversial, nothing novel, but merely the publication of an already well-established aspect of the Catholic Faith, which despite its doctrinal correctness and great importance is yet very poorly known!

THREE HISTORICAL INSTANCES PROVING THAT POPES CAN PUBLICLY TEACH ERROR IN FAITH AND MORALS

The examples of Popes actually, publicly, teaching erroneous doctrines of faith and morals, are authentic undeniable events taken from the history of the Catholic Church and are presented in the order of time.[The main source of historical information has been the 1913 edition of 'The Catholic Encyclopedia']

1st. example from the history of the Church - a Pope publicly condones a heresy:

1. A POPE, SUPPORTS A HERESY IN HIS PUBLIC TEACHING – Honorius I, after his death, in an infallible decree of an Ecumenical Council, is declared a heretic for supporting and not suppressing a heresy

About the year 630, Sergius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, in union with other Eastern bishops, in order to 're-unite' some heretics, the Monothelites, who held the false opinion that Christ had only one will, proposed a compromise teaching, that Christ had only one operation, implying that indeed He had only one will. Pope Honorius I gave his written approval for this innovation, completely confirming the heresy.

This Pope, therefore, in his authentic Magisterium clearly supported a heresy rather than condemning it.

His letter supporting the heresy has the following words expressing his opinion:  (Denzinger 251):

"Hence, we confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ ... whether ... one or two operations ought to be said or understood to be derived, such (questions) should not concern us, leaving them to the grammarians ..."

It is clear that Pope Honorius I fully confirmed the Monothelite error, saying exactly what they claimed, giving his written support for their positive and negative teachings, viz., that there is only one will in Christ, and that the expression, "two operations" should not be used. The Pope, therefore, in his normal authentic public teaching or magisterium was supporting a heresy rather than condemning it!

This false doctrine and its inventors was discussed at the Sixth Ecumenical Council, held in 680-681, some 41 years after Pope Honorius' death, and the result was an ‘EX CATHEDRA’ decree by Pope St. Leo II, declaring all the bishops involved and also Pope Honorius I as having been heretics.

THE FORCE OF THE DECREE CONDEMNING POPE HONORIUS AS A HERETIC - IT IS AN INFALLIBLE RULING, A DOGMA.

The decrees of Ecumenical Councils, in order to be accepted by the Church, must, be so-to-speak, always appropriated by a Pope as ‘his own’ and issued by him as 'EX CATHEDRA' rulings, that is, in effect as ‘articles of faith’, binding in conscience upon the whole Church, under the pain of excommunication. This is a well established law, contained in the Canons of the Church and proven by the history of 20 Ecumenical Councils. (See article on Ecumenical Councils and Ecumenicity)

For example, we read in Catholic Encyclopaedia  (1913, v.4, pp.427 & 431):

* Its [the Council’s] sufficiency is equally manifest: WHEN THE POPE HAS SPOKEN EX CATHEDRA TO MAKE HIS OWN THE DECISIONS OF ANY COUNCIL"

* "THE PAPAL RATIFICATION FORMALLY PROMULGATES THE SENTENCE OF THE COUNCIL AS AN ARTICLE OF FAITH"

Thus Pope Honorius’ condemnation as a heretic is infallible! The ‘EX CATHEDRA’ decree of St. Leo II states (Catholic Encyclopaedia, 1913 edn., v. 7, p.455) :

'We anathematise the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Sergius ... and also HONORIUS, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of the Apostolic tradition, but by PROFANE TREACHERY permitted its purity to be polluted.'

The Seventh and Eighth Oecumenical Councils also condemned Pope Honorius and Popes swore an oath upholding this truth.

This condemnation of Pope Honorius was included in the lists of heretics condemned by the Seventh and Eighth Oecumenical Councils and also in the oath taken by every new Pope from the eighth century to the eleventh in the following words:

".… together with Honorius, who added fuel to their wicked assertions."

Therefore, following the ruling of the Holy Ghost, expressed through Pope St. Leo II, we are obliged to admit, with Fr. Chapman, the theologian in the Catholic Encyclopaedia, (1913, vol.7, p.455):

"It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. HE WAS A HERETIC, not in intention, but in fact;"

It is most noteworthy that this ‘revelation’, in the solemn condemnation of Pope Honorius as being not in the Church, was carried out after his death, and must, therefore, apply to his soul. Only God could do this!

A PRE-EMPTIVE NOTE – the decree was made infallible by an 'ex cathedra' act by Pope St. Leo II, BUT Pope Honorius’ action was NOT an ‘ex cathedra’ infallible act.

Firstly – In anticipation of a possible dismissal of this extraordinary sentence as being a ‘mistake’ by an Ecumenical Council, it is pointed out that this decree, condemning Pope Honorius I as a heretic is known to be the decree which in fact determined that Council as an Ecumenical Council!

Fr. Chapman, the theologian, reviewing this history (loc.cit.) stated:

"The words about Honorius in his [Pope Leo’s] letter of FORMAL CONFIRMATION, by which the council gets its Ecumenical rank, are necessarily more important than the decree of the council itself!

Secondly – likewise neither is there any concern that Christ’s promise that His Church would never teach error in doctrines of faith and morals, had failed! Although Pope Honorius’ support of heresy was public, it was not addressed to bind the whole Church, and consequently it was not an infallible, not an ‘ex cathedra’, act.

And hence the Church had NOT erred, but only the Vicar of Christ, in ‘teaching’ in a non-infallible manner!

Yet we should not be pursuaded, as some authors attempt, that Pope Honorius was not a heretic since he did not positively teach a heresy. We must remember that it is certain that not only he who professes heresy is qualified as a heretic, but also whoever favours heresy in any manner whatever is a heretic. To reject this assertion is to prove one’s ignorance of the truth as taught and practiced by the Church

2nd. example from the history of the Church, a Pope writes a Bull authorising Catholics to practice the gross immorality of torturing suspected heretics.

2. POPES PUBLICLY AUTHORISE A PERVERSE MORAL PRACTICE – Pope Innocent IV first authorised the use of physical torture – his successors, Alexander IV (1260) and Urban IV (1262) did likewise.

In 1252, in his Papal Bull, "Ad extirpanda," Pope Innocent IV, a renowned ecclesiastical lawyer, sanctioned and taught that physical torture could be used in the interrogation of suspected heretics.His immediate successors, Popes Alexander IV (1260) and Urban IV (1262) confirmed this perverse moral teaching.

It continued to be supported by Popes for several hundred years, and was still approved by Popes as late as 1500, as for example in the case of the Dominican, Savanorola, tortured in Alexander VI’s reign, in 1498.
(The Mediaeval Inquisition, Jean Guiraud, Burns Oates & Washbourne, London, 1929; Catholic Encyclopaedia, 1913, v.8, p.32)

This was despite the fact that Pope St. Nicholas I, had condemned torture as contrary to the Divine law, as pointed out by Pope Pius XII, who:

"... particularly emphasized the prohibition on physical and psychological torture, and cited Pope Nicholas I who, in reply to a query from the Bulgarian King in 866 ("Responsa ad Consulta Bulgarorum"), clearly proclaimed the inadmissibility of such a practice under both divine and human law."
(The Sixth International Congress on Criminal Law, 3 Oct. 1953 in – "The International Review of the Red Cross" – 31 March 1998, n. 322, p.75-80),

In this example, a moral teaching of one Pope was ‘overturned’ by another and then ‘reversed’ again by a successor!

Again then, the Vicars of Christ, taught in a non-infallible manner a perverse moral practice, in their ordinary teaching, and hence the Church had NOT erred, but only they!

3rd. example from the history of the Church, - a Pope publicly teaches a doctrine contrary to an article of the Catholic Faith:

3. A POPE PUBLICLY TEACHES ERRONEOUS DOCTRINE – Pope John XXII taught a false doctrine before and throughout his reign until the year of his death.

From before his election and through his whole reign (1316-1334), to the year of his death, Pope John XXII, persistently taught in public sermons the false doctrine that the souls entering Heaven did not immediately enjoy the intuitive vision of God and would only do so after the Last Judgement. This was generally held as an error and some theologians opposed him, even called his opinion heretical.

But it was not till the year of his death, 1334, that he accepted the decision of a commission he set up and renounced his false opinion (Catholic Encyclopaedia, 1913, v.8, p.433).

Shortly after, in 1336, this teaching was infallibly condemned as false by Pope Benedict XII, in the decree, "Benedictus Deus", declaring it an article of faith, a DOGMA that the souls of the blessed enjoy the Beatific Vision immediately on entering Heaven.

Thus Pope John XXII actually taught for many years a doctrine contrary to divine revelation though not then formally declared as such. As in the case of Pope Honorius I, John XXII’s teaching, although public, was not addressed to bind the whole Church, and consequently it was not an infallible ‘ex cathedra’ act.

Once more the Church had NOT erred, but only the Vicar of Christ, in ‘teaching’ in a non-infallible manner!

CONCLUSION

These three historical examples of Popes publicly teaching erroneous morals and doctrines, establish irrefutably that:

It is an indisputable HISTORICAL fact that Popes can and, in fact, have publicly taught error in matters of faith and morals in the non-infallible channel.

It can be safely said that this truth is an instance of:

"Contra factum non est argumentum" - against a fact there is no argument - there is no valid objection.

There is nothing novel in this conclusion. It is nothing other than a reality well-known to theologians and Church historians, being proven by undeniable historical events. As already said, the quoted affirmation of the Canon Lawyers and theologians, accomplishes the goal of this work. All that has been done here has been to present historical examples.

THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE IGNORANCE THAT A POPE CAN TEACH ERROR IN FAITH AND MORALS IN HIS ORDINARY TEACHING

Ignorance of this basic truth has become so widespread that it has led to a serious error throughout the whole Catholic Church – it has resulted in a false criteria of orthodoxy contrary to Catholic faith. It has become almost a universally espoused false opinion that:

Whatever the Pope teaches today in matters of faith and morals, irrespective of his way and channel of expression is necessarily the Apostolic Catholic Faith, and demands full assent under the threat of heresy and schism.

In practical terms this novel and false criteria finds expression in two false propositions:

1. In effect, although not formally, almost every word at all related to religion, uttered by the Pope is wrongly raised to the level of infallibility;

2. The Pope alone, no one else, it is wrongly claimed, can state what, in the catholic teachings of the past, belongs to "divine" tradition and what belongs to "human" tradition, and can therefore be changed.

There result bad consequences from the adherence of many Catholics to this attitude. And it can be shown that:

The claim that a Pope is always infallible in any matter of faith or morals irrespective of how he expresses himself is not harmless – and it is always more or less sinful on several counts:

1. Firstly, it produces division and even unjust persecution among the faithful

This follows from unjust accusations by Catholics who believe in this false premise against those who don’t.

2. Secondly, it is contrary to the Catholic Divine Faith as taught by the Church.

It is of fact that Papal infallibility is very severely restricted, and its conditions are infallibly defined. Thus, the "ex cathedra" infallible definition by Pope Blessed Pius IX, ensuing from the 20th Ecumenical Council of Vatican (1869-70) declares (Denzinger n.1839):

"We teach and define it to be a dogma divinely revealed that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, WHEN ACTING IN HIS OFFICE OF PASTOR AND TEACHER OF ALL CHRISTIANS, BY HIS SUPREME APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, by his supreme Apostolic authority, HE DEFINES A DOCTRINE CONCERNING FAITH OR MORALS TO BE HELD BY THE WHOLE CHURCH, through the divine assistance promised him in Blessed Peter, HE ENJOYS THAT INFALLIBILITY with which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to be endowed in defining doctrine concerning faith and morals ; and therefore such definitions of the said Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church."

PART B - Understanding The Scope And Limits Of Papal Teaching As Taught By The Catholic Church

The scope and limitations of Papal infallible teaching, as determined by the phrase ex cathedra are:

[1] that he speaks as pastor and teacher of the WHOLE Church - this excludes from the sphere of infallibility what he may propose as a private teacher, even if he taught theology or write religious books;

[2] that he shows CLEARLY, especially by the tenor of his words and the circumstances chosen for their pronouncement his INTENTION of proposing, as a dogma, in an irrevocable decision to bind ALL the Church, some truth directly or indirectly contained in the deposit of Divine revelation.

[3] the objects of infallibility must be EXCLUSIVELY doctrines concerning faith and morals, or truths intimately connected therewith.

ONLY if these conditions are fulfilled, does the Pope’s teaching enjoy infallibility.

THE ACTIVITIES, WITHIN THE TERMS OF THE DEFINITION, IN WHICH THE POPE DOES NOT ENJOY, IMMUNITY FROM ERROR

In the normal day-to-day [common or ordinary non-universal] teaching mode, in which he frequently addresses the faithful, either directly or through the medium of the Roman Congregations, the Pope does NOT enjoy the charism of infallibility.

None of the addresses, in which the Holy Father may speak merely as Bishop of Rome; or as Pope, when he gives instruction to only a section of the universal Church; or, to the whole Church, but without the intention of defining anything as of faith, are within the scope of infallibility.

The same can be said of the times when the Pope expresses his mind motu proprio, i.e. by initiating a question himself, or perhaps, in response to queries submitted to him. Likewise, teaching which is, technically, non-infallible may be imparted in Pontifical Decrees and Instructions and in Encyclical Letters, for all of which the Pope is the responsible author. Similarly, his authorisations of the decisions of the various Roman Congregations, are not to be regarded as infallible definitions.

None of the teachings which the Pope gives in these channels of communication are endowed with the note of infallibility. This may be summarised as:

1. "The ordinary and usual [non-universal] form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible. Further, the decisions of the Roman Congregations (Holy Office, Bible Commission) are not infallible. "

A Notable Instance Of A Papal Ordinary Public Teaching Which Is Not Infallible - the beatification process

The Church teaches that when ‘beatifying’ some of Her deceased members as ‘Blessed’, for having shown outstanding sanctity in their lives, it is certain that:

"The Pope is not infallible in beatifying."

CONCLUSION REGARDING PAPAL TEACHING

And although - "it is to him [the Holy Ghost] that the Church looks for that gift of infallibility, ... Such assistance does not necessarily preserve the Church from error except in regard of revealed truth and truths intimately connected with revelation."

It is therefore well-known and well-established, and has always been taught, that in non-infallible teachings a Pope may be mistaken and therefore publicly teach error in matters of faith and morals.

It is therefore against the Catholic Faith to assign the force of infallibility to all Papal public teaching in any of the non-infallible channels.

(All the above definitions have been extracted from three sources: "Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology", Fr. P. Parente, Bruce, 1952, p.142; "The Teaching Of The Catholic Church", Fr. G. Smith, Burns & Oates, 1956, p.160; and "Fundamentals Of Catholic Dogma", L. Ott, Tan, 1974, p.10.)

Return to Page 1 Contents

2. WHAT CATHOLICS SHOULD KNOW ABOUT ECUMENICAL COUNCILS AND VATICAN II

THE LAWS OF THE CHURCH AND THEIR PRACTICE, DEFINING ECUMENICAL COUNCILS, AS SHOWN BY THE HISTORY OF ALL 20 SUCH COUNCILS UP TO VATICAN II ESTABLISH UNEQUIVOCALLY THAT:

FOR A COUNCIL TO BE AN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, THE POPE MUST ISSUE AT LEAST ONE "EX CATHEDRA" DECISION FROM IT - THIS WAS NOT DONE FOR VATICAN II

WHY WE SHOULD UNDERSTAND CLEARLY WHAT CONSTITUTES AN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

The meaning of the word "Ecumenical"

In the present context, the word, "Ecumenical", is not to be mistaken for the current in-word, signifying gatherings of people of two or more different philosophical cum-religious persuasions. It is used here to describe assemblies of bishops, under the direction of the Pope, which are intended to represent the whole Church.

Ecumenical Councils are unique, Church Councils, their teachings, unlike those of other Councils apply to the whole Church for all time
Of the various kinds of Synods of the Church, the Ecumenical Councils stand out as unique gatherings. They are the only Councils which, when genuine, always result in a Pope issuing from them infallible "EX CATHEDRA" rulings, binding the whole Church for all time.
It is therefore precisely due to their clearly far-reaching influence that we should be certain as to when and how such Councils come to acquire this moral force, or Ecumenicity, if we are not to be misled and lead others into following erroneous doctrines of faith and morals.

PART I - "ECUMENICAL COUNCILS"

RECOGNISING ECUMENICAL COUNCILS BY THEIR UNIQUE NATURE

The sources of definitions of Ecumenical Councils given in this work are not personal opinions but authentic Church teachings
To obviate any doubt or accusations about the sources of the definitions of Ecumenical Councils, as given below, it is stressed that these are discourses by Catholic theologians known for their expertise of Conciliar theology. The references upon which this work is based are given in the Appendix, at the end.

THE MOST CLEAR, CONSPICUOUS, AND IRREFUTABLE DEFINITIONS OF WHAT CONSTITUTES AN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL:

1. Ecumenical Councils - are ONLY those Councils from which a POPE issues one or more "EX CATHEDRA" infallible definitions, AS ARTICLES OF FAITH, ALWAYS BINDING THE WHOLE CHURCH FOR ALL TIME

2. (a) It is ONLY AND ONLY when a Pope makes an "EX CATHEDRA" ruling of a Council teaching that due to the INFALLIBLE character of THAT SPECIFIC ruling, that the Council becomes Ecumenical with reference to THAT SPECIFIC ruling, irrespective of how it was arrived at.

(b) This SOLEMN Papal, "EX CATHEDRA", ratification of ONE Conciliar resolution, although making the Council into an Ecumenical Council, DOES NOT render the REST of the Council's decisions AS the teachings of the Church. For this to be the case EACH ONE INDIVIDUAL Conciliar decree MUST be declared by the Pope "EX CATHEDRA", as an ARTICLE OF FAITH!

(c) Without the Pope issuing a solemn, "EX CATHEDRA", ratification of at least ONE Conciliar decision, making THAT SPECIFIC teaching into an ARTICLE OF FAITH, the Council CANNOT be an Ecumenical Council with teachings binding the whole Church, irrespective of the fact that it may have fulfilled all the other requirements for Ecumenicity demanded by the Church's Laws and practice.

In this last instance, it is a fact that when the Pope does not make any one Conciliar teaching into an infallible decree and an article of faith, by an "EX CATHEDRA" definition, the labours of such a Council are in vain. It is not an Ecumenical Council, and the faithful hesitate and refuse to accept as infallible guides of their faith, documents not guaranteed infallible by the seal of the successor of St. Peter.

Before presenting concrete proofs for all the aspects of these definitions, it is well to make a summary concise definition of an Ecumenical Council:

A COUNCIL IS ONLY AN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL IF FROM ITS RESOLUTIONS A POPE ISSUES AT LEAST ONE INFALLIBLE RULING IN THE FORM OF AN "EX CATHEDRA" DEFINITION, MAKING THAT TEACHING AN ARTICLE OF FAITH, BINDING THE WHOLE CHURCH FOR ALL TIME

That this definition is absolutely certain and irrefutable, as are all the conditions included in the other definitions under 2a to 2c (see above), is readily established from the Church's Laws or Canons and their interpretation by the Church from Her history of Her consistent practice of 20 Ecumenical Councils, over almost 2000 years.

THE LAWS OF THE CHURCH ABOUT ECUMENICAL COUNCILS, AND THEIR PROPER INTERPRETATION AS PRACTICED BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN HER 20 ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

These must be seen under the two aspects:

1. a statement of the Laws or Canons (C.) of the Church, defining Ecumenical Councils.

2. Concrete proofs of the proper application of these Canons as found in the practice of the Church.

1. A STATEMENT OF THE LAWS OR CANONS (C.) OF THE CHURCH, DEFINING ECUMENICAL COUNCILS.

Although there are several Canons regarding Ecumenical Councils, only the one dealing with the force of Conciliar decrees, that is, with their ratification, need be discussed in detail with reference to the definition of factors which determine Councils as Ecumenicall.
This is because all the given definitions are based on it, and as will be shown, this is the pre-eminent Canon on which a Council's Ecumenicity depends.
Thus this Canon, in the 1917 and 1983 Codes, is now given. The other Canons defining Ecumenical Councils are given in the Appendix at the end.

From the 1917 CODE, the relevant Canon is:

C. 227 - "Conciliary decrees have no obligatory force unless they are ratified by the Roman Pontiff and promulgated by his command"
("A Commentary On Canon Law", Fr. P.C.Augustine, Herder, 1920)

The equivalent Canons from the revised 1983 Code are:

C. 34l - S.1. "Decrees of an Ecumenical Council do not have obligatory force unless they are approved by the Roman Pontiff together with the fathers of the council and are confirmed by the Roman Pontiff and promulgated at his order".
("The Code Of Canon Law: A Text And Commentary", J. Coriden, Paulist Press, New York, 1985)

Note on the Canons of the two Codes - one Canon is pre-eminent in determining Ecumenicity of a Council

Clearly, the Canons of 1917 and 1983 are identical in meaning, though worded differently. However, it should be noted that the 1917 Canons reflect the form of all the Councils preceding Vatican II. These then are the sources for the correct understanding of what constitutes such a Council.

2. CONCRETE PROOF OF THE FACT THAT FOR A COUNCIL TO BE ECUMENICAL THE RATIFICATION OF IT'S DECREES CANNOT BE AN ORDINARY PAPAL APPROVAL BUT MUST BE EXTRAORDINARY, IN THE FORM OF AN "EX CATHEDRA" RULING

The words in the Canons describing a Pope's action necessary to make Conciliar decrees binding on the whole Church do not immediately reveal that they mean this MUST be in the form of the extraordinary "EX CATHEDRA" ruling,

Thus the 1917 Canon declares it as:

* A Ratification and promulgation commanded by a Pope

While the 1983 Canon speaks of it as:

* An Approval, confirmation and promulgation ordered by a Pope

That "Ratification and promulgation" or "Approval, confirmation and promulgation" means must be in the form of EX CATHEDRA rulings is not immediately obvious,

It is possible to be misled into thinking that the Papal ratification or approval, to make the Conciliar decrees binding, could be merely an Ordinary Approval, rather than that of the mandatory Extraordinary Approval or Ratification in the form of an "EX CATHEDRA" ruling! On deeper reflection, however, it can be seen that the latter is the only one valid action by which any Conciliar teaching could be made binding on the whole Church! This is borne out by the acts of each of the 20 Ecumenical Councils in the Church's history. Thus, recourse to the latter irrefutably establishes:

THE HISTORY OF EACH OF THE 20 ECUMENICAL COUNCILS, UP TO VATICAN II, PROVES IRREFUTABLY THAT THE PURPOSE OF SUCH COUNCILS IS TO FURNISH A POPE WITH ONE OR MORE TEACHING WITH WHICH TO BIND THE WHOLE CHURCH, BY HIS ISSUING IT IN THE FORM OF AN EXTRAORDINARY "EX CATHEDRA" RULING

The following three citations, taken from two reviews of Ecumenical Councils by two Catholic theologians, published by the Catholic Encyclopaedia (CE, 1913 edition) establish this truth:

[1] "Once the REQUISITE PAPAL CONFIRMATION has been given the doctrinal decisions of an ECUMENICAL COUNCIL BECOME INFALLIBLE AND IRREFORMABLE" (Catholic Encyclopaedia v.7, p.796)

[2] "IT IS THE ACTION OF THE POPE THAT MAKES THE COUNCILS ECUMENICAL. ... Its necessity results from the fact that no authority is commensurate with the whole Church except that of the POPE; HE ALONE CAN BIND ALL THE FAITHFUL. Its sufficiency is equally manifest: WHEN THE POPE HAS SPOKEN "EX CATHEDRA"TO MAKE HIS OWN THE DECISIONS OF ANY COUNCIL." (Catholic Encyclopaedia v.4, p.427)

[3] "THE PAPAL RATIFICATION FORMALLY PROMULGATES THE SENTENCE OF THE COUNCIL AS AN ARTICLE OF FAITH to be known and accepted by all the faithful; it brings to light and public view the intrinsic ecumenicity of the council- it is the natural, official, indisputable criterion, or test, of the perfect legality of the conciliar transactions or conclusions"(Catholic Encyclopaedia, v.4, p.431)

The above definitive affirmations are concise summaries of the Church's Law on Ecumenical Councils as the Church has understood and applied them in practice over 2000 years in each of Her 20 Ecumenical Councils. Summing up from the above statements, it is clear that:

It is exclusively the singular action of a Pope, who by appropriating Conciliar resolutions as his own, issues them with the REQUISITE confirmation, in the form of an "EX CATHEDRA" rulings, as ARTICLES OF FAITH, that make any Council, Ecumenical, that is, one which is binding, infallible and irreformable in THOSE decrees.

THESE STATEMENTS ARE NOT OPINIONS BUT HISTORICAL FACTS

The above assertion are supported by concrete events from the history of the Church. They are not merely personal opinions. The following two examples prove this claim.

THE 4th ECUMENICAL COUNCIL (the Council of Chalcedon - 451) - was NOT ECUMENICAL IN ALL ITS RESOLUTIONS. They were NOT ALL ratified INFALLIBLY by Pope St. Leo I.

Of this Council, which closed after 16 Sessions, theologians, declare: ("Catholic Encyclopaedia", 1913, "Chalcedon", v.3, p.558):

"At the closing of the sessions the council wrote a letter to Pope Leo I, ... and asked for the ratification of the disciplinary matters enacted, particularly canon 28. ... Pope Leo protested ... against canon 28 and declared it null and void ... Otherwise the pope ratified the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, but ONLY inasmuch as they referred to matters of faith. ... hence the Council of Chalcedon, AT LEAST AS TO THE FIRST SIX SESSIONS, BECAME AN ECUMENICAL Synod, and was considered as such by all Christians."

Thus in 10 of the 16 Sessions, the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, was NOT Ecumenical, as the Pope refused to ratify infallibly the resolutions thereof!

THE 2nd ECUMENICAL COUNCIL (the First of Constantinople - 381) - was NOT convened as an Ecumenical Council, but became that, SOLELY on account of ONE of its enactments! "ITS OTHER TEACHINGS WERE REJECTED BY THE POPES" - IT WAS NOT ECUMENICAL IN THOSE!

This Council was NOT convened NOR directed by a Pope as an Ecumenical Council. Historians are not sure when for certain it first received that recognition; possibly, 70 years later, from Pope St. Leo I, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon ("Catholic Encyclopaedia", v.15, p.427). It was certainly recognised as Ecumenical in and after Pope Gregory's time, some 200 years after it closed. Thus we read:

"The Synod of Constantinople (381) ... had in itself no claim to be Ecumenical. Pope Damasus ... condemned certain of its proceedings ... but on receiving the Acts, Damasus, ... [probably] confirmed them. ... however, ... ONLY ...WITH REGARD TO THE CREED... : the canons of this council were still rejected by [Popes] Leo the Great and even by Gregory the Great (about 600 [200 years later]). ... IT WAS ON ACCOUNT OF THE PAPAL APPROBATION OF THE CREED that, in the sixth century [538-604], Popes Vigilius, Pelagius II, and Gregory the Great declared this council Ecumenical, although Gregory still refused to sanction its canons."

While Fr. C. Raab ("The Twenty Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church", Longman, 1937, p.14) writes of this same SECOND ECUMENICAL COUNCIL:

"Pope Gregory the Great, following the example of Pope Vigilius and Pope Pelagius II, recognized it as an ecumenical council, but ONLY IN ITS DOGMATICAL UTTERANCES"

Thus the Second Ecumenical Council came into existence from a non-Ecumenical Council only as the result of ONE of its teachings being ratified as an "EX CATHEDRA" ruling by a Pope!

A careful study of the Church's 20 Ecumenical Councils shows that the details of these two Councils adequately cover the whole range of circumstances encountered in the history of all such Councils. They may, therefore, be safely used as authoritative sources sufficient for defining the features indispensable in the constitution of Ecumenical Councils. In fact, the case of the 2nd. Ecumenical Council, could, by itself, be referred to for this purpose. However, the details of these two Councils reveal the proper application of the Church's laws regarding Ecumenical Councils showing that:

THE ACTS OF ALL THE PAST ECUMENICAL COUNCILS, ESTABLISH INCONTESTABLY THAT:

* A Council derives its Ecumenical nature, that is, of having INFALLIBLE obligatory teachings issued from it as "EX CATHEDRA" rulings, as ARTICLES OF FAITH OR DOGMAS, ENTIRELY from the Pope defining them in THAT WAY, that is, as articles of faith.

* A Council is ONLY Ecumenical, that is, binding on the whole Church, ONLY in those of its teachings which the Pope chooses to define as INFALLIBLE, "EX CATHEDRA" decrees, as articles of faith. It is NOT Ecumenical, that is, it is NOT binding on the whole Church, IN ANY OF ITS OTHER resolutions NOT SO DEFINED BY THE POPE.

* A Council does NOT derive any Ecumenical nature NOR do any of its teachings acquire any obligatory force whatever from any of its members, regardless of the dignity of its members. Without a Pope expressing any of its teachings as "EX CATHEDRA" decrees, it remains a HEADLESS, POWERLESS body, and ALL its resolutions are no more than mere ADVISORY judgments, which could even be erroneous.

* The other two requirements which must also be satisfied for a Council to be Ecumenical, those of a Pope convening and presiding over its proceedings, whether personally or by delegation, if not fulfilled at the beginning and in the course of the Council, can be "supplied" for by a Pope as soon as he "appropriates" or makes his own any of its teachings and issues it as an infallible "EX CATHEDRA" decree, as an article of faith. (cf. 2nd. Ecumenical Council, above)

* The Calling of a General Church Council to be an Ecumenical Council does NOT seal it, or guarantee it, as being that when it closes!

* For a Council to be an Ecumenical Council the Pope has no choice but to make at least one of its teachings his own and declare it SOLEMNLY IN AN "EX CATHEDRA" RULING AS AN INFALLIBLE ARTICLE OF FAITH binding the whole Church.

Further examples of Ecumenical Councils proving this law are the Council of Ephesus, the "Robber Synod", which though convened as Ecumenical was delared invalid, and the Council of Constance, which was declared "Partly" Ecumenical. The details of these are given in the Appendix at the end.

PART II - VATICAN II

It is a fact that from Vatican II there was not issued by a Pope a single infallible "EX CATHEDRA" irreformable and binding decree, or article of faith

Pope Paul VI, the "Pope of the Council", "confessed" that not a single Decree from Vatican II was endowed with infallibility

That a Pope did not produce a single infallible binding decree from Vatican II is well documented. Shortly after closing the Council, Paul VI announced (L'Osservatore Romano, 1/21/1966), in the General Audience of 12 January 1966, that:

"IN VIEW OF THE PASTORAL NATURE OF THE COUNCIL, IT AVOIDED ANY EXTRAORDINARY STATEMENTS OF DOGMAS ENDOWED WITH THE NOTE OF INFALLIBILITY."

This is a supremely authoritative statement! This Papal "confession" must always be kept in mind when treating of Vatican II! Its importance cannot be over-stressed. It establishes unquestionably three incontestable facts:

* Firstly - Pope Paul's ratifications of the Council's decrees were NOT irrevocably binding "EX CATHEDRA" definitions, and articles of faith, but merely procedural actions

* Secondly - From Vatican II there did not issue a single obligatory decree, since NONE WERE DEFINED BY Pope Paul AS "EX CATHEDRA" INFALLIBLE RULINGS, and articles of faith.

* Thirdly - All attempts at proving that any Vatican II teaching is obligatory are futile. There is no way this can be done other than by a Pope now making his own a teaching of Vatican II and defining it as an "EX CATHEDRA" ruling, as an article of faith.

The claim that the decrees of Vatican II are STILL obligatory because they are the teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is INAPPLICABLE, because that is solely an INFORMATIVE EXPRESSION and NOT A DEFINING ACTION, and it demands that teachings are UNIVERSAL, not merely CURRENT in terms of place and living bishops but ALSO IN ALL TIME, that is, THAT THEY HAVE ALWAYS BEEN BELIEVED AND TAUGHT. THIS IS NOT THE CASE WITH VATICAN II DECREES. BECAUSE THEY ALL CONTAIN INNOVATIVE TEACHINGS, AS DECLARED BY POPE JOHN PAUL II (L'Osservatore Romano, N.51/52 - 20/27 Dec., 1995, p.4) :

"Dignitatis humanae" is undoubtedly one of the Council's MOST INNOVATIVE texts."

Since one text is "most innovative", then so must be the rest!

The nature of Vatican II and its place in the life of the Church

THE NATURE OF VATICAN II - IT WAS NOT AN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

From all the foregoing historical facts it is undeniably clear and certain that: Since, as shown by the history of the Ecumenical Councils of the Church, only those Councils from which a Pope issues an obligatory teaching in the form of Solemn infallible "EX CATHEDRA" ruling are Ecumenical Councils, then VATICAN II WAS NOT AN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, as this was not done for it by its Pope, Paul VI.

40 YEARS OF FAILED IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UNDEFINED TEACHINGS OF VATICAN II, AS ADMITTED BY POPE JOHN PAUL II AND OTHER EXPERTS, SHOW IT HAS NO PLACE IN THE LIFE OF THE CHURCH

1. It is an incontestable fact that John Paul II has said:

Vatican II has been for the Church a source of confusion, and grave abuses and doctrinal errors, and problems. This is what Pope John Paul admitted, in May 2002, to the Bishops of the Antilles (L'Osservatore Romano, N.20 - 15 May 2002, pp.3, 4). He said:

"..in the years following the Council, ... what took place was an arbitrary confusion of roles especially regarding the priestly ministry and the role of the laity. These serious practical abuses ... often originated in doctrinal errors, especially with regard to the nature of the liturgy, ... of the vocation and mission of ... the ordained ministry of priests ... and if THERE HAVE BEEN PROBLEMS IN THE CHURCH SINCE [VATICAN II] ..."

2. And three Catholic experts have recently judged that:

After 40 years Vatican II is not yet understood, not yet "received"; it's a profound revolution at an unknown stage, which has made unforeseen changes and is uncontrollable and unstoppable. This is the belief of two Catholic theologians, Bishop Rino Fisichella, rector of the Lateran University (13/10/02, in "www.zenit.org"), and Father Markey, a theologian from Barry University, Miami (17/10/02, in "Catholic News Service - www.catholicnews.com"), and a lay Catholic writer, G. Svidercoschi, former assistant director of the Pope's paper, L'Osservatore Romano (22/10/02, in "www.zenit.org").

The bishop revealed the conclusion of an international congress held at the Lateran University to mark the 40th. anniversary of the opening of Vatican II, while Fr. Markey expressed the verdict of a like congress held in Seattle, US. The latter's actual words, which well express the beliefs of all three men, a bishop, a priest and a lay man, forming a fair cross-section of the Catholic Church, were:

"It is a revolution - it is not over yet. We now realise we are in the middle - or early stage - of a transformation that takes years to complete and is beyond the power of anyone to control or stop."

THE PLACE OF VATICAN II IN THE LIFE OF THE CHURCH - NONE

Vatican II was clearly an unprecedented event. Never, prior to this Council, have any decrees issued by an Ecumenical Council ever caused confusion in the Church. And neither could they, being guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit.
It is an error, then, to claim that the innovative texts of Vatican II which have produced confusion, and have not been "received" after 40 years, were guided by the Holy Spirit! The Pope did not invoke Him in the ratification of its decrees! Vatican II, clearly, was not an Ecumenical Council, and together with its teachings it has no place in the life of the Church. The informed faithful rightly reject it.

Vatican II was a work typical of modernism: the abuse of a channel of authority to impose illicit practices, apparently in an authoritative manner. It was a case of:

What was done was done, and, from the very lack of definition in the "doing", it acquired all the more easily the name of being what it appeared to be, and which it was not!

APPENDIX

Sources upon which this work is based

For the most part, facts have been drawn from the work of Dr. J. Wilhelm, S.T.D., and in part from Dr. P. Toner S.T.D., in the articles: "Councils", and "Infallibility", presented in the 1913 edition of "The Catholic Encyclopaedia", an international work of reference on the Constitution, Doctrine, Discipline, and History of the Catholic Church (vols. 4 & 7, respectively). These authors, in producing their accounts referred to many standard publications on this subject, drawing on various sources, as for example, those of the well-known scholars Hefele and Mansi.

Further to these articles, the more recent texts on Church Councils of Fr. C.Raab, ("The Twenty Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church", 1937), and Dr. H.Jedin O.S.B., historian of the Council of Trent ("Ecumenical Councils in the Catholic Church", 1960), were consulted.

Further Canons defining Ecumenical Councils

From the 1917 CODE, the relevant Canons are:

C. 222 - S.1 "There can be no Ecumenical Council unless it is convoked by the Roman Pontiff.
  S.2 It is the right of the Roman Pontiff to preside over the Ecumenical Council either in person or through others; to determine the matters discussed and in what order; to transfer, suspend or dissolve the Council, and to confirm its decrees."
("A Commentary On Canon Law", Fr. P.C.Augustine, Herder, 1920)

The equivalent Canons from the revised 1983 Code are:

C. 338 - S.1 "It is for the Roman Pontiff alone to convoke an Ecumenical Council, to preside over it personally or through others, to transfer, suspend or dissolve it, and to approve its decrees.
  S.2 - "It for the same Roman Pontiff to determine the matters to be treated in a Council, and to establish the order to be followed in a Council; to the questions proposed by the Roman Pontiff the fathers of a Council can add other questions, to be approved by the same Roman Pontiff."
("The Code Of Canon Law: A Text And Commentary", J. Coriden, Paulist Press, New York, 1985)

TWO MORE EXAMPLES OF ECUMENICAL COUNCILS PROVING THAT "ECUMENICITY" DEPENDS TOTALLY ON A POPE MAKING AT LEAST ONE CONCILIAR DECISION INTO AN "EX CATHEDRA" RULING.

1. The Council at Ephesus (449), named by Pope St. Leo I, the ‘Robber’ Synod, was convened by the emperor, with the approval of Pope Leo to be Ecumenical and, at first, duly authorised by the presence of Papal legates. Later it was later declared invalid and null by the Pope, through those same legates at the Council of Chalcedon (451).

2. The Sixteenth Ecumenical Council of Constance (1414-1418) was ‘convened’ by the anti-Pope John XXIII, in October 1414, and went into action immediately. But it was realised that its position was unconstitutional, and this remained so until some 13 Sessions, 9 months later, when Pope Gregory XII lawfully summoned the bishops to the Council. In the 14th. Session, his delegate, in the Pope’s name, authorised the Council’s future acts and Gregory’s abdication. Gregory himself confirmed these acts as he resigned in the 17th. Session. The entry in the Catholic Encyclopaedia(1913, v.4, pp.288 and 425 respectively) describes this Council as:

“Constance, Council of a (PARTLY) œcumenical council held at Constance”

"This council is thus ecumenical only in its last sessions (XLII-XLV inclusive) and with respect to the decrees of earlier sessions approved by Martin V."

While Fr. Raab wrote, regarding this Council:

“... its own [the Council’s] authority dated only from that moment, and all its previous acts – in particular those of the fourth and fifth sessions were devoid of all ecumenical character.”
(“The Twenty Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church”, Fr. C. Raab, Longman, 1937, p.128)

Authorship - This work was compiled by Dr. A. Z. Britten B.Sc., M.Sc., Ph.D. A detailed booklet on this thesis is available from him. He may be contacted at present by e-mail at info@none.evesham.net

Return to Page 1 Contents

3. "THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH" OR THE "CCC" AND ITS 'CORRECTION'

Did you know that from 1992, when it was first published, until 1997, this Catechism, besides other errors, taught that Sodomy or Homosexuality was excusable! (see n.2358 in "CCC" and below at n.1)

This meant that Homosexuality or Sodomy was NOT A SIN!

But such a teaching is a heretical error! So this "Catechism of the Catholic Church", for FIVE years, taught heresy and justified a grossly immoral behaviour !

Then in 1997, a new edition came out in which is taught that the practice of sodomy or homosexuality is a sin! So there's the proof that this 'Catechism', claimed to be a " A NORM OF FAITH" OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TAUGHT A HERESY IN THE FORM OF EVIL MORALS.

Do you still insist it was a Catechism produced by the Catholic Church?
How could "the Bride of Christ", guided by God the Holy Spirit, have produced such a horrificly erroneous teaching? Is it not a terrible sin of blasphemy to make such a claim? Yes, it is that and nothing less! Clearly, this so-called "Catechism Of The Catholic Church" was not and is not a gift of the true Catholic Church. That's impossible. There must be another explanation.

 But can you imagine what harm this immoral teaching has done? Thousands of people were misled into accepting this immoral behaviour as good. Among them were many many priests !!

Are you not angry at such carelessness? Your own children may have been affected by such teaching. Do you not care who was responsible for this terrible error?

And has this evil and harmful teaching stopped now? What about all the copies people have and refer to? It is possible to see this evil pro-sodomy teaching still quoted on Web Pages. Just go to:
http://www.christusrex.org/wwwl/CDHN/sixth.html#CHASTITY
and look up the entry n.2358 and read:

"The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. THEY DO NOT CHOOSE THEIR HOMOSEXUAL CONDITION!

And besides that immoral teaching which was removed in the 1977 edition, though not from Web sites and people's shelves, do you know that this "CCC" still teaches heretical errors? Well, it does, and it is easy to show this. If you care about God's truth, about your own faith and the Catholic Church, should you not inform yourself about this Catechism and its errors?

If you care, then read on and see for yourself whether you agree that for all the good things in it, there are also evil errors of faith and morals.

IN 1992 Pope John Paul II PRESENTED "THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH" TO THE WORLD as an "authoritative instrument", as he called it (L'Osservatore Romano, N.49 - 9 December 1992, p.1)

BUT IN 1997, 5 YEARS LATER, AFTER "THE HORSE HAD BOLTED, THE STABLE DOOR WAS APPARENTLY CLOSED TO" - SOME 100 CORRECTIONS HAD TO BE MADE TO IT - not merely typographical - SOME WERE DOCTRINAL ERRORS!

If this is true, would you still hold that the "CCC" is an "authoritative instrument", as the Pope called it ?

SO HOW DID THIS 'GIFT' of the"Catechism of the Catholic Church" COME ABOUT?

This 'great' gift of a so-called Catechism came to the Church in 1992 in French not Latin! and the Pope called it an "authoritative instrument" (L'Osservatore Romano, N.49 - 9 December 1992, p.1).

And it was immediately translated, errors and all, into some 30 languages!

Then come 5 years later, in 1997, Cardinal Ratzinger produced a so-called 'CORRECTED' version in Latin, and he voiced an utter absurdity to describe the event. You'll never guess what he proposed!

He said, at a Press Conference, that all the versions would have to conform to this Latin edition, and:

"It is evident that the official version must be definitive, and cannot be subject to changes; it is for this reason that it was preferred to first publish the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" in a modern language, thus keeping the option of making IMPROVEMENTS."
(Preface - "Catechism of the Catholic Church - Corrigenda", amendments to the 1992 Edition, Vatican Translation, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997, ISBN 1 871217 24 5, Family Publications, England)

REFLECTION - DIABOLIC DISORIENTATION - NO CARE FOR SOULS BY THE SHEPHERDS!

We should reflect very very seriously on the way this Catechism was produced and Cardinal Ratzinger's "explanation". "It should not be subject to changes", he said! after he had just made some 100 changes ! What is the scenario? Is it not:

"Publish this book quickly in French without checking it thoroughly and immediately translate it into 30 languages, never mind any errors in it, we can examine it for errors later and correct them"

What an attitude to Holiness? What care for souls and love for God's will? What a Magisterium? What a gift!

So for 5 years this "Catechism of the Catholic Church", this "authoritative instrument", as the Pope called it(L'Osservatore Romano, N.49 - 9 December 1992, p.1) is sent out full of errors to pervert millions and then it is corrected! Can you reallly believe that this was and is the work of the Catholic Church?

A great expensive book at that! And guess what, every Catholic was given a book of the corrections when they came out, and faithfully amended his copy? Not on your life - no one from the Church told me about the corrections - and knowing human nature, few will update it!

These original versions are most likely being used as they were first bought, errors and all, and this by people teaching others - errors admixed with truth! Which one have you got, 1995 with all the errors or 1997 with less errors?

And is it now absolutely correct? Why on earth should I have confidence in its contents now? Come on, we judge by past performance and so what will we say?

We will say we can't trust it - as 'once bitten twice shy', unless of course we are gluttons for punishment! Whoever, accepts this Catechism without reservation and comparison with the Church's genuinely authoritative Catechism, proven over 4 centuries, that is, the Catechism of the Council of Trent, is rash to say the least!

And in fact I can show you doctrinal mistakes still in the 'so-called' corrected edition!

WHAT SORT OF ERRORS WERE IN THIS CATECHISM BEFORE IT WAS "CORRECTED"?

No, they were not all grammar and punctuation! There were explicit or implied doctrine errors errors. Here are four examples:

1. FIRST DOCTRINAL/MORALS EXAMPLE: - CORRECTED in 1997 - SODOMY OR HOMOSEXUALITY WAS SAID TO BE EXCUSABLE - IT WAS SAID THAT PEOPLE DO NOT CHOOSE TO PRACTICE SODOMY!

"The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition." ("CCC" n. 2358)

The CORRECTION made in 1997 to replace sentence in italics by: "This inclination, which is OBJECTIVELY DISORDERED, constitutes for most of them a trial."
So 5 years went by while this "CCC" was used to teach this immorality and heretical error to thousands of people, including bishops, priests, seminarians - forming bad consciences! It is unbelievable that the men who issued this immoral text had any care for souls.

2. SECOND DOCTRINAL EXAMPLE: - CORRECTED in 1997 - HOLY MASS DEFINED ERRONEOUSLY - IT WAS NOT STATED THAT IT IS A SATISFACTORY SACRIFICE FOR SIN

[1A] this is the original wording of paragraph n.1367: there's nothing subtle to look for here - it's just, that a most important aspect of what the Mass is for is omitted - you can see the omitted part [in capitals in blue] at the end of the corrected version [B]:

[1A]"The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: '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."

[Instruction in the corrections=] "This paragraph and the corresponding footnote l88 should be modified to appear as follows" - in [1B]:

[1B] Here's the corrected version - you can see the missing teaching given at the end, which I have capitalised in blue so you can spot it easily :

"The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: '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.'
'And since 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 offered in an unbloody manner ...THIS SACRIFICE IS TRULY PROPITIATORY.'

Now this is one of the three purposes of the Sacrifice of the Mass, appeasement or satisfaction for the violation of God's will - and to miss it out and let people, especially priests, grow up for 5 years in ignorance of this, is this not a real sign of lack of knowledge of what the Mass is. Is it not an astonishing lack of love of God and souls!

And you can see the 'fruit' of such neglect - on the whole neither priests nor people have any sense of justice towards God, that is, they have no notion of the need to appease or satisfy God for the outrages of sin committed against Him! And this is one of the chief purposes of the Mass instituted by God!

3. THIRD PASTORAL HERETICAL ERROR NOT CORRECTED IN 1997 - STILL TAUGHT BY THE "CCC" - THIS 'CATECHISM' TEACHES THAT CHRIST FOUNDED THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON THE ROCK OF ST. PETER'S FAITH.

This is an old Protestant heresy, 'taught' ** repeated 'faithfully' word for word in this 'CCC'' under n. 424, as:

"Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus Christ AND CONFESS: "You are Christ, ... On the ROCK OF THIS FAITH confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church"

This 'confession' denies the institution by Christ of St. Peter as the Head of His Church! It is a heretical error, still taught by this 'CCC'!

4. FOURTH DOCTRINAL EXAMPLE: - NOT CORRECTED in 1997 - THIS 'CATECHISM' TEACHES THE BLASPHEMY THAT JESUS CHRIST, GOD, GAVE SCANDAL TO THE JEWS AND OFFENDED THEM!

Oh, yes, under n. 588, 589, 581, this 'CCC' TEACHES THE PERVERSION THAT GOD COULD SCANDALISE AND OFFEND people!

1. "Jesus scandalised the Pharisees ..." (n. 588)
2. "Jesus gave scandal when He ..." (n. 589)
3. "Yet Jesus could not help but offend the teachers of the Law ... for He taught as one who had authority." (n. 581)

It is beyond belief that reasonable men, let alone Catholics and Churchmen, at that, could be so blind to even think of God giving scandal. We should not need anyone to point out to us that this is a horrible blasphemy, attributing the giving of scandal by Jesus Christ, true God. Nevertheless, we should know that one of the Church's greatest Doctors and theologians, St. Francis de Sales, answered this blasphemous assertion when it was made by Protestants in his time. The Saint explained:

"Our Lord cannot be scandalous, for all in Him is sovereignty [supremely, perfectly] good; nor scandalised, for he is sovereignly powerful and wise; - how then can it happen that one should be scandalised in Him ... ? It would be a horrible blasphemy to attribute our evil to His Majesty.

Our Lord then does not scandalise us, nor does His holy Word, but we are scandalised in Him, which is the proper way of speaking, in this point, as Himself teaches, saying: "Blessed is he that shall not be scandalised in me." [Matt 11:6].

But if there are men who would say the contrary, [as those who wrote this chapter in the "Catechism of the Catholic Church"] they have nothing left, as I have said, but to curse their Saviour with His own words:

"Woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh."

[Taken from "The Catholic Controversy", Fr. H. Mackey, Burns & Oates, 1886, p.5. Also available from "Tan Publications"]

REFLECTIONS

Yes, I am going to say it - because I have seen the staged-managed picture (L'Osservatore Romano, 1992, as above) of the Holy Father handing over this compendium of errors to a little girl, while saying:

"Catechism is truly a gift to the Church"

Some gift that, leading people into laxity and ignorance! We'd have been better off without it - and it wasn't as if there were no good Catechisms about at the time! No, they were not novel, that was the problem: they condemned modernist neo-Catholic errors.

These are but two of the corrections made officially, which with the two others I have described, UNCORRECTED the blasphemy against Our Lord, and the Protestant teaching on the founding of the Church are, I reckon, great reasons for having no confidence in this Catechism - I ask you, will you put your life on it that there's now no more doctrinal errors in it?

If you do you will be very sorry!  There are many more errors of doctrine and morals in this "CCC " - like, e.g., the teaching of Religious Liberty, and Universal Salvation! [To be discussed very soon]

Are you going to trust it as being without any more serious errors? Yes, that's right, you'd be foolish to take such a risk. Try and convince a man to buy the same model of a car which was made with a major design fault! There were some 100 corrections made in 1997!

So much then for the care by the Holy Father for his children! The devil himself couldn't do better to pervert the morals of ignorant Catholics!

What a shocking thing for a Catholic to say? Nay, say rather, what a shocking thing for the Pope to do!!

Catholics need to be shocked to start to live in fear of God and to value the gift of faith and their rightful spiritual heritage and not in adulation of men who seem hell-bent on changing the Church of God into the Synagogue of Man!

No, I am no sedevacantist, I am, I hope, by the grace of God, doing what He wants every Catholic to do - to love truth and hate and to oppose and fight to death if necessary and destroy all falsehood in His Church!

You don't like the tone of this reflection on the Catechism of the Catholic Church? Why not? Send in a better one which shows it's free of serious errors, a good and holy work! I challenge you. But remember, you have to prove there is not one single error of faith or morals in it. Otherwise, despite its good points, it remains a constant source of perversion of morals, an evil book, which the Catholic Church could never produce and offer it to Her children as an "authoritative instrument."

Return to Page 1 Contents | Return to Home Page