In support of the judgement that Karol Wojtyla cannot be the Vicar of Christ, I propose to establish these points:
1. Catholics may (and must in many cases) assess whether a claimed prelate really possesses authority in Christ's Church.
2. Heretics are baptised men who doubt or deny at least one dogma, whilst retaining the claim of being Christians.
3. Manifest heretics are heretics who have severed their external bonds of union with the Church, and are therefore not Catholics.
4. Manifest heretics can be known with certainty as such, by various external indicators.
5. Manifest heretics cannot possess authority in Christ's Church.
6. Karol Wojtyla is a manifest heretic - indeed, he is a notorious heretic.
7. Karol Wojtyla is not the pope.
8. If Karol Wojtyla is the pope, then Holy Church has defected, that is, failed. This is impossible.
Beginning with the question of our right and duty of withdrawing from subjection to those who show themselves to be heretics, I have prepared some quotes and comments which should leave the matter beyond doubt. Frankly, quotations of this kind could be multiplied almost indefinitely, for they represent the constant tradition of Holy Church.
I have taken the trouble to prove two points in relation to this question: viz. that we may indeed form judgements about others, and also that we may act upon them.
Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Matt. 7:15.
It is agreed by all who haven't thoroughly absorbed the appalling liberalism of our times that one may indeed judge. Moral theology manuals lay down that rash judgement is sinful, but they say nothing in condemnation of judging, per se. In fact, what they do is explicitly affirm the right and, in appropriate situations, the duty, of judging others.
From the Code of Canon Law:
"The study of philosophy and theology and the teaching of these sciences to their students must be accurately carried out by Professors (in seminaries etc.) according to the arguments, doctrine, and principles of St. Thomas which they are inviolately to hold." [Emphasis added].
St. Thomas Aquinas proposes the following objection, familiar to all who live in our days of suffocating Liberalism, "It would seem unlawful to judge. For nothing is punished except what is unlawful. Now those who judge are threatened with punishment, which those who judge not will escape, according to Mt. 7:1, 'Judge not, and ye shall not be judged.' Therefore it is unlawful to judge." And then he answers as follows, "In these words our Lord forbids rash judgement which is about the inward intention, or other uncertain things, as Augustine states (De Serm. Dom. in Monte ii, 18). Or else He forbids judgement about Divine things, which we ought not to judge, but simply believe, since they are above us, as Hilary declares in his commentary on Mt. 5. Or again according to Chrysostom, He forbids the judgement which proceeds not from benevolence but from bitterness of heart."
In another place, the Angelic Doctor asks, "Whether it is permissible to receive communion from heretical, excommunicate, or sinful priests, and to hear mass said by them?" And he provides, according to his usual method, several objections. Objection 3 is as follows, "Further, there are many sins graver than fornication. But it is not forbidden to hear the masses of priests who sin otherwise. Therefore, it ought not to be forbidden to hear the masses of priests guilty of this sin."
The answer to this objection provides an insight into this question of privately formed judgements. "Although fornication is not graver than other sins, yet men are more prone to it, owing to fleshly concupiscence. Consequently, this sin is specially inhibited to priests by the Church, lest anyone hear the mass of one living in concubinage. However, this is to be understood of one who is notorious, either from being convicted and sentenced, or from having acknowledged his guilt in legal form, or from it being impossible to conceal his guilt by any subterfuge." [Emphasis added.]
In this way the Angelic Doctor shows that the very law of Holy Church requires that individuals form a prudent judgement, on occasion, regarding another's sinfulness. And this is made doubly clear by the fact that St. Thomas mentions, along with those who have confessed, or been convicted by authority, those whose sin is public and cannot be concealed. So we see a specific instance of private judgement being not only permitted, but enjoined. That is, in this matter it is a right and a duty.
From the Profession of Faith of the (First) Vatican Council:
"Likewise I accept Sacred Scripture according to that sense which Holy Mother Church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy scriptures; nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers."
Chrysostom, Homily XXIII on Matthew.
MATT. VII. 1. "Judge not, that ye be not judged."
"What then? Ought we not to blame them that sin? … if this were to obtain, all would be lost alike, whether in churches, or in states, or in houses. For except the master judge the servant, and the mistress the maid, and the father the son, and friends one another, there will be an increase of all wickedness. And why say I, friends? unless we judge our enemies, we shall never be able to put an end to our enmity, but all things will be turned upside down.
"What then can the saying be? Let us carefully attend, lest the medicines of salvation, and the laws of peace, be accounted by any man laws of overthrow and confusion. … In this place, then, as it seems at least to me, He doth not simply command us not to judge any of men's sins, neither doth He simply forbid the doing of such a thing, but to them that are full of innumerable ills, and are trampling upon other men for trifles."
"Beware of false prophets, for they will come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." Behold together with the dogs and swine another kind of ambush and conspiracy, far more grievous than that. For those are acknowledged and open, but these shaded over. For which cause also, while from those He commanded to hold off, these He charged men to watch with exact care, as though it were not possible to see them at the first approach. Wherefore He also said, "beware"; making us more exact to discern them.
Chrysostom, Homily XLII on Matthew:
MATT. XII. 33 "Either make the tree good, and his fruit good, or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt; for the tree is known by his fruit."
"For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." Here again He indicates His Godhead, which knew their secrets: and that not for words only, but also for wicked thoughts, they shall suffer punishment; and that He knows it all, as God. And He saith, that it is possible even for men to know these things; for this is a natural consequence, that when wickedness is overflowing within, its words should be poured forth through the lips. So that when thou hearest a man speak wicked words, do not suppose only so much wickedness to be in him as the words display, but conjecture the fountain to be much more abundant; for that which is spoken outwardly, is the superabundance of that which is within. [Emphasis added.]
Chrysostom, Commentary on Galatians, Chapter 3.
"But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any Gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema."
"See the Apostle's wisdom; to obviate the objection that he was prompted by vainglory to applaud his own doctrine, he includes himself also in his anathema; and as they betook themselves to authority, that of James and John, he mentions angels also saying, "Tell me not of James and John; if one of the most exalted angels of heaven corrupt the Gospel, let him be anathema." The phrase "of heaven" is purposely added, because priests are also called angels. "For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger [angel] of the Lord of hosts." (Mal. ii: 7.) Lest therefore it should be thought that priests are here meant, by the term "angels," he points out the celestial intelligences by the addition, "from heaven." And he says not, if they preach a contrary Gospel, or subvert the whole of the true one, let them be anathema; but, if they even slightly vary, or incidentally disturb, my doctrine. "As we have said before, so say I now again." That his words might not seem to be spoken in anger, or with exaggeration, or with recklessness he now repeats them. Sentiments may perhaps change, when an expression has been called forth by anger, but to repeat it a second time proves that it is spoken advisedly, and was previously approved by the judgement." [Emphasis added.]
Chrysostom, Homily VI on Titus.
"Contentions," he means, with heretics, in which he would not have us labor to no purpose, where nothing is to be gained, for they end in nothing. For when a man is perverted and predetermined not to change his mind, whatever may happen, why shouldest thou labor in vain, sowing upon a rock, when thou shouldest spend thy honorable toil upon thy own people, in discoursing with them upon almsgiving and every other virtue? How then does he elsewhere say, "If God per-adventure will give them repentance" (2 Tim. ii. 25); but here, "A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject, knowing that he that is such is subverted and sinneth, being condemned of himself"? In the former passage he speaks of the correction of those of whom he had hope, and who had simply made opposition. But when he is known and manifest to all, why dost thou contend in vain? why dost thou beat the air? What means, "being condemned of himself"? Because he cannot say that no one has told him, no one admonished him; since therefore after admonition he continues the same, he is self-condemned." [Emphasis added].
From St. Jerome, quoted by Dr. Haydock in the footnotes in his version of the Douai Rheims Bible. The commentary footnoted below Matthew 7:1 ("Judge not, and ye shall be not judged") reads as follows, "Judge not,* or condemn not others rashly, that you may not be judged or condemned. St. Jerom observes, Christ does not altogether forbid judging, but directs us how to judge. Where the thing does not regard us, we should not undertake to judge. Where it will bear a favourable interpretation, we should not condemn. Magistrates and superiors, whose office and duty require them to judge faults, and for their prevention to condemn and punish them, must be guided by evidence, and always lean towards the side of mercy, where there are mitigating circumstances. Barefaced vice and notorious sinners should be condemned and reprobated by all." [Emphasis added.]
From the Apostolic Constitution, Cum ex Apostolatus, of Pope Paul IV:
"Finally, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We] also [enact, determine, define and decree]:-
that any and all persons who would have been subject to those thus promoted or elevated if they had not previously deviated from the Faith, become heretics, incurred schism or provoked or committed any or all of these, be they members of anysoever of the following categories:
(i) the clergy, secular and religious;
(ii) the laity;
(iii) the Cardinals, even those who shall have taken part in the election of this very Pontiff previously deviating from the Faith or heretical or schismatical, or shall otherwise have consented and vouchsafed obedience to him and shall have venerated him;
(iv) Castellans, Prefects, Captains and Officials, even of Our Beloved City and of the entire Ecclesiastical State, even if they shall be obliged and beholden to those thus promoted or elevated by homage, oath or security;
shall be permitted at any time to withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated and to avoid them as warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs … [Emphasis added.]
“Heretics are baptised men who doubt or deny at least one dogma, whilst retaining the claim of being Christians.”
Canon 1325 defines an heretic as “one who after Baptism, whilst remaining nominally a Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts any one of the truths which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith.”
Truths which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith are known as “dogmas.” The Vatican Council teaches that "all those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgement or by her ordinary and universal magisterium, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed."
Fr. de Zulueta, Letters on Christian Doctrine (Burns, Oats & Washbourne, 1922, 9th edition) explains: "…be it carefully observed, it is not necessary for the guilt of heresy that the doctrine should have been solemnly defined by supreme authority; it is quite sufficient that it should form part of the ordinary daily teaching of the Church throughout the world, which is infallible. To say, 'It is not heresy to deny this doctrine: for the Church has never DEFINED it,' is utterly UNSOUND. Hence it would be heresy to deny any truth contained in the Scriptures, because the Church teaches all that the Scriptures do." (Emphasis in the original).
Before we can discuss intelligently the various degrees of openness of heresy, or its effects, we must ensure we understand what it is. To this end we must be clear about a few distinctions. For example, the difference between “heresy” and “heretic.”
An heretic is one who is guilty of the crime of heresy, and has not repented. That is, an heretic is one who is in the “state” of heresy. An heresy is a doctrine which is directly opposed to a dogma. Immediately we should be able to see that an heretic is not merely one who holds to an heresy – an heretic may not hold to any heresy whatsoever, for he may be guilty only of doubting a dogma. Being in such a state of doubt, he lacks the certainty of faith. He is faithless.
Finally, there are two elements to heresy – the doctrine involved, and the pertinacious will. If a man doubts or denies something which is not actually a dogma, he is not an heretic. Or if a man doubts or denies a dogma, but without pertinacity, he is not an heretic. “Doubt” must be pertinacious doubt. That is, not a fleeting question about whether something is true, but a wilful failure to adhere to what is proposed by the Church for belief. Pertinacity is said to be present when a man knows that he opposes the Church. McHugh and Callan, Moral Theology – A Complete Course (Wagner, New York, London, 1958), explain: “Heresy is not formal unless one pertinaciously rejects the truth, knowing his error and consenting to it.”
The two elements which constitute heresy (false doctrine and pertinacity) correspond to the nature of man – intellect and will. Both the intellect and the will are involved in faith, and both are disordered in heresy. Likewise, both are by their nature internal – that is, neither is by its nature visible externally. But both may be externalised, or brought into the open by the delinquent, and when they are we can identify heresy, or an heretic.
The question of HOW we identify an heretic will be treated in the fourth point, in which I will prove that we can know a manifest heretic with certainty.
“Manifest heretics are heretics who have severed their external bonds of union with the Church, and are therefore not Catholics.”
From what has been proved already, we know that an “heretic” is one who pertinaciously doubts or denies a dogma. Hence a manifest heretic must be one whose error and pertinacity are manifest.
By “manifest” we mean “open.” The term “manifest” excludes the idea of secrecy, so it refers to the case of an heretic whose heresy is not hidden, or secret, but rather out in the open, clear. Further, the “openness” of heresy is not a subjective matter, dependent on the knowledge or clear-sightedness of those who witness it. Rather, it is a quality of the thing itself. Hence the definitions of the various grades of “publicity” of crimes, as given in the Code of Canon Law.
"A crime is:
Note that these definitions do not make “publicity” depend on how many people actually know about a particular crime. Rather, they depend on how easy it would be for men to know about a given crime.
Now, a manifest heretic differs from an occult (“secret”) heretic in one important detail – the manifest heretic is no longer a member of the Church. He has left it, by his own will, in the very act of revealing himself openly as an heretic.
Pope Pius XII, (Mystici Corporis Christi): “For not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy." [Emphasis added.]
Pope Pius XII, (Mystici Corporis Christi): "Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptised and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed." [Emphasis added.]
Mgr. G. Van Noort, STD, (Dogmatic Theology, Vol. II, "Christ's Church" - Mercier Press, 1958) pp.239 ff. :
"Scholion 1. Who are not members of the Church?
[Van Noort gives some preliminary comments on membership, then the following]
"a. Those who have not received baptism of water are not members of the Church. Etc.
"b. Public heretics (and a fortiori, apostates) are not members of the Church. They are not members because they separate themselves from the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of that faith. Obviously, therefore, they lack one of the three factors - baptism, profession of the same faith, unity with the hierarchy - pointed out by Pius XII as requisite for membership in the Church (see above, p. 238) [This citation refers to the relevant section of Mystici Corporis Christi by Pope Pius XII]. The same pontiff has explicitly pointed out that, unlike other sins, heresy, schism, and apostasy automatically sever a man from the Church. 'For not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy'. (MCC 30; italics Van Noort's)" [MCC refers to Mystici Corporis Christi, Pope Pius XII. Bolding added.].
St. Robert Bellarmine, (On the Church Militant, bk. 3, ch. 4, On Heretics and Apostates) "Alphonsus de Castro teaches (On the Just Punishment of Heretics, bk. 2, ch. 24) that baptized heretics and apostates are members and parts of the Church, even if they openly [palam] profess false doctrine. This opinion, as it is plainly false, is very easily refuted."
St. Robert Bellarmine, (On the Roman Pontiff, bk. 2, ch. 30.): "The foundation of this argument is that the manifest heretic is not in any way a member of the Church, that is, neither spiritually nor corporally, which signifies that is not such by internal union nor by external union. For even bad Catholics are united and are members, spiritually by faith, corporally by confession of faith and by participation in the visible sacraments; the occult heretics are united and are members although only by external union; on the contrary, the good catechumens belong to the Church only by an internal union, not by the external; but manifest heretics do not pertain in any manner, as we have already proved." [Emphasis added.]
“Manifest heretics can be known with certainty as such, by various external indicators.”
A curious claim is made by many post-V2 commentators – that we cannot ever know that another is an heretic unless and until the Church passes formal judgement. Probably because of the fact that those who push this novelty cannot seem to find a single quote from authority which supports this alleged “first principle” of Christian charity, they argue instead by accusing their opponents of pride and malice.
The best answer to such nonsense is merely to ignore it, and instead present the truth. We have already seen what a manifest heretic is. It now remains to show that such an heretic can be identified. Unfortunately, this point in our series requires lengthier treatment than previous ones, due to the amazing amount of confusion which has been engendered concerning it.
The key words in the statement we are seeking to prove are “certainty” and “external.”
We have already proved, from the authority of Holy Scripture, St. Thomas, and the Fathers, that we are obliged to avoid heretics. Further, it is implicit in the quotes presented in Post 2 that we can know an heretic prior to the judgement of the Church, for we are instructed how we are to know heretics.
Our Lord Himself teaches, “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.” Matt. 7:15-20.
“By their fruits.” That is, not “By the judgement of the Church,” but by what is apparent; what is visible; what is produced.
St. John Chrysostom explains, "'For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.' Here again He indicates His Godhead, which knew their secrets: and that not for words only, but also for wicked thoughts, they shall suffer punishment; and that He knows it all, as God. And He saith, that it is possible even for men to know these things; for this is a natural consequence, that when wickedness is overflowing within, its words should be poured forth through the lips. So that when thou hearest a man speak wicked words, do not suppose only so much wickedness to be in him as the words display, but conjecture the fountain to be much more abundant; for that which is spoken outwardly, is the superabundance of that which is within.” [Emphasis added.]
But we delay. As Mgsr. Paul Glenn (Criteriology) explains, certitude is “the firm and unwavering assent of the mind to known truth.”
Certitude may be of various kinds – metaphysical, physical, or moral. Matters in which men's wills are essential are matters of the moral order. Hence the kind of certitude we may achieve in such matters is moral certainty.
The three kinds of certitude are all truly certitude. The difference between them is not that only metaphysical certitude is certain – no, all are truly certain. The difference is rooted in the subject matter to which they relate. That is, the difference in the kind of certitude is rooted in the difference in the truth which is seen.
St. Thomas, Summa Contra Gentiles, “Because not every truth admits of the same mode of manifestation, and 'a well-educated man will expect exactness in every class of subject, according as the nature of the thing admits,' as is very well remarked by the Philosopher (Eth. Nicom. I, 1094b), we must first show what mode of proof is possible for the truth that we have now before us.“ Of God and His Creatures - Translation (With some Abridgement) of the Summa Contra Gentiles of Saint Thomas Aquinas by Joseph Rickaby, S.J. (London: Burns and Oates, 1905).
Aristotle, in the place referred to by St. Thomas, Nichomachean Ethics, Book 1, Ch. 3, "Our discussion will be adequate if it has as much clearness as the subject-matter admits of, for precision is not to be sought for alike in all discussions, any more than in all the products of the crafts. … In the same spirit, therefore, should each type of statement be received; for it is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits; it is evidently equally foolish to accept probable reasoning from a mathematician and to demand from a rhetorician scientific proofs."
One might remark that it is the mark of an uneducated man to insist on metaphysical proofs in matters of the moral order. And yet that is precisely what defenders of the modern heretics do, thinking that in this way they confound the faithful, and that thus we can be fooled into remaining in subjection to Christ's enemies.
Mgsr. Paul Glenn explains the nature of the different types of certitude:
“Metaphysical certitude is the unwavering assent of the mind to what things in their essence and nature must be. Our certitude that man is an animal, or that a totality is greater than any one of its component parts, is metaphysical, for the very concept of man's essence, the very ideas of totality and part, make the judgments inevitable. Metaphysical certitude is also called absolute certitude.
“Physical certitude is the unwavering assent of the mind to what expresses the order of nature and the consistency of natural laws. Our certitude that a dead man will not return to earthly life is physical; so also is our certitude that snow must be white, and that good seed will sprout when planted under favorable conditions in fertile ground.
“Moral certitude is the unwavering assent of the mind to what expresses the normal mode of human conduct. Thus we have moral certitude that a mother will love her child. It is to be noted in passing that the expressions, 'It is morally certain,' and 'It is a moral certainty' are 'newspaper English' for a greater or lesser degree of 'probability.' These expressions, as used casually in unscientific speech, are not to be confused with the terms moral certitude and morally certain, used in Criteriology. For these terms do not indicate a mere opinion, however probable, but true certitude, a full and unwavering assent of the mind upon evidence taken from the normal human mode of action, evidence which the mind finds sufficient to win its full assent.”
And, “That which is morally certain can be conceived of as existing otherwise, and may in fact exist otherwise without the intervention of a miracle, but not without the intervention of a human will which acts in a manner contrary to the normal and rational mode of human conduct, that is, of such conduct as proceeds from the deliberate will of a normal person. The basis and evidence of metaphysical certitude is the very essence of things; that of physical certitude is the constancy of nature; that of moral certitude is the constancy or normal human conduct.
“I am metaphysically certain that a circle cannot be square. I am physically certain that bodies at rest tend to remain at rest. I am morally certain that a man of virtue will not suddenly become vile.”
In other words, moral certainty is founded on the knowledge we have of human nature. What comes out of the mouth is that which is in the heart. “For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.” It is not “presumption” to take men at face value – it is common sense. What is “presumption” is to make excuses for men who make none for themselves, and in fact glory in their own crimes. Moral certainty excludes any reasonable doubt. Defenders of heretics implicitly prove this by their various attempts to summon unreasonable doubt.
Thus we should have a clearer idea of the meaning of “certainty.”
The other key word in this question is “external.” For some reason not at all apparent to me the defenders of heretics suffer a fixation with words. They seem to think that an heretic can only ever be known by heretical words. But that is not the teaching of the Catholic authorities, and our opponents never cite any to that effect.
In the definition of the Immaculate Conception Ven. Pope Pius IX was perfectly clear about the teaching of the Catholic Church concerning what constitutes “external heresy.” He taught, “Hence, if anyone shall dare - which God forbid! - to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart.” [Emphasis added.]
And St. Pius X teaches the same thing, in Pascendi. “Although they express their astonishment that We should number them amongst the enemies of the Church, no one will be reasonably surprised that We should do so, if, leaving out of account the internal disposition of the soul, of which God alone is the Judge, he considers their tenets, their manner of speech, and their action.”
Likewise the teaching of the canonists and theologians:
St. Thomas, S. Th. II-II, Q. 12, Art. 1, Reply Obj. 2: “It belongs to faith not only that the heart should believe, but also that external words and deeds should bear witness to the inward faith, for confession is an act of faith. In this way too, certain external words or deeds pertain to unbelief, in so far as they are signs of unbelief, even as a sign of health is said itself to be healthy.”
And the Angelic Doctor gives an example of an act of this nature, “if anyone were … to worship at the tomb of Mahomet, he would be deemed an apostate.”
"External heresy is that which is manifested by exterior signs (words, signs, actions, omissions of actions)." (Merkelbach, pg. 570)
"External heresy is an error against the faith, revealed by a word or by some other exterior indication." (Prummer, pg. 365)
"To incur such an excommunication 'latae sententiae, specially reserved to the Sovereign Pontiff,' it is necessary that the heresy, after having been interiorly conceived should be exteriorly manifested by a word, a writing or an action." (Tanquerey, Syn. Theol., Mor. et Past., pg. 475)
"External heresy adds to the internal heresy a sufficient exterior manifestation, expressed by such words, signs or actions as would be conclusive." (Wernz-Vidal, pg. 444)
Summing up, we should be quite clear that when we assert that it is possible to identify an heretic with certainty, we are referring to moral certainty, for the matter is one of the moral order. And moral certainty is true certainty – “the firm and unwavering assent of the mind to known truth.” We can be truly certain that a mother loves her child. We can be truly certain that a virtuous man will not suddenly become a slave to vice. We can be quite certain that a man is an heretic.
And when we speak of “indications in the external forum,” or “external signs” or “external indicators” we are referring to words, actions, omissions, or signs. In other words, whatever evidence there is which indicates the presence or absence of the supernatural virtue of faith in the subject.
Hence, if a man speaks heresy, acts in accordance with his heresy, prays in common with heretics, and praises heresiarchs in public, and cannot be excused on the grounds of ignorance, then clearly he is an heretic himself. Both the pertinacity requisite for the crime of heresy (i.e. the fact that he knows better), and the heretical ideas which infest his mind, are clear. They are clear in the external forum, and they constitute external heresy. And an external heretic is no member of the Catholic Church, as has already been proved.
“Manifest heretics cannot possess authority in Christ's Church.”
Pope Leo XIII, in his famous encyclical on the unity of Holy Church, Satis Cognitum, makes the plain statement that “it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.”
But manifest heretics are outside the Church. St. Augustine, “No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic'.” (De Haeresibus).
Therefore manifest heretics cannot command in the Church.
Canon 188, Section 4, states, "By tacit resignation, accepted by the law itself, all offices become vacant ipso facto and without any declaration if a cleric... publicly defects from the Catholic Faith." [Emphasis added.]
Canon 192, Section 1, lays down, “A person may be unwillingly deprived of, or removed from, an office, either by operation of law or by an act of the lawful superior." [Emphasis added.] Note the clear alternatives: either by the law itself, or by a superior.
Pope Paul IV teaches (in Cum ex Apostolatus) that, "…if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:
“the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
“it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
“it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;
“to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;
“each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;
“those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power, without any exception in respect of those to which they may have been promoted or elevated before they deviated from the Faith, became heretics, incurred schism, or provoked or committed any or all of these."
St. Robert Bellarmine quotes Pope St. Celestine I as follows: "The authority of Our Apostolic See has determined that the bishop, cleric, or simple Christian who had been deposed or excommunicated by Nestorius or his followers, after the latter began to preach heresy shall not be considered deposed or excommunicated. For he who had defected from the faith with such preachings, cannot depose or remove anyone whatsoever." [Emphasis added.]
The canonist Coronata explains, "III. Appointment to the office of the Primacy. 1o What is required by divine law for this appointment: (a) The person appointed must be a man who possesses the use of reason, due to the ordination the Primate must receive to possess the power of Holy Orders. This is required for the validity of the appointment. Also required for validity is that the man appointed be a member of the Church. Heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are therefore excluded." [Emphasis added.]
St. Thomas teaches, “…the power of jurisdiction is that which is conferred by a mere human appointment. Such a power as this does not adhere to the recipient immovably: so that it does not remain in heretics and schismatics; and consequently they neither absolve nor excommunicate, nor grant indulgence, nor do anything of the kind, and if they do, it is invalid." (S. Th. II-II, Q. 39, Art 3.) [Emphasis added.]
St. Thomas, in the same place, quotes St. Cyprian as follows, “He who observes neither unity of spirit nor the concord of peace, and severs himself from the bonds of the Church, and from the fellowship of her priests, cannot have episcopal power or honour.”
St. Robert Bellarmine teaches, "… it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is ipso facto deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus, c. 3), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate - which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ." (De Romano Pontifice).
Against these authorities it has been objected that on occasion Holy Church seems to have waited for some time after an heretic publicly defected from the faith before declaring the fact and replacing him in any offices he might have held. But this objection carries no weight whatsoever, because it is also true that declared schismatics and heretics are sometimes capable of validly absolving from sin, and yet nobody thinks that they have ordinary jurisdiction. What they are able to receive is extraordinary jurisdiction, supplied by Holy Church for the act itself, for the good of souls. Canon 882 lays down that “in danger of death all priests, though not approved for confessions, can validly and licitly absolve any penitent from any sins and censures, although reserved and notorious, even if an approved priest is present.”
And Canon 209 states that “the Church supplies jurisdiction both for the external and the internal forum: (1) in common error; (2) in a positive and probable doubt whether of fact or law.” Hence if a bishop were to become a public heretic and thus lose his ordinary jurisdiction together with his ecclesiastical office of bishop, but the people of his diocese were ignorant of the law and believed that he still had jurisdiction, then the Church would supply it on an act-by-act basis, for the good of souls.
This is sufficient explanation for why Holy Church has on occasion, to avoid greater evils (such as large-scale schism), permitted an heretic to remain materially in a see after he had lost it by public heresy. Hence the judgement of Pope St. Celestine I as follows: "The authority of Our Apostolic See has determined that the bishop, cleric, or simple Christian who had been deposed or excommunicated by Nestorius or his followers, after the latter began to preach heresy shall not be considered deposed or excommunicated. For he who had defected from the faith with such preachings, cannot depose or remove anyone whatsoever."
Nestorius, by his public defection from the Catholic Faith, lost his office as Patriarch of Constantinople, and from then on he was incapable of exercising authority in Holy Church. His excommunications and depositions from office were invalid. But he remained materially (that is, physically only) in the see of Constantinople for some time after he lost any right or authority. If, in that period, when many thought that he still had jurisdiction, he had absolved penitents in the confessional, then Holy Church would have supplied the jurisdiction required for those acts, on an act-by-act basis. But this supplied jurisdiction is only given for the good of souls. Any acts (such as excommunications against good men) which are not for the good of souls, are invalid and of no effect whatsoever.
“Karol Wojtyla is a manifest heretic - indeed, he is a notorious heretic.”
Karol Wojtyla, “John Paul II,” certainly does not possess the supernatural virtue of faith, and has manifested this lack of faith publicly. We shall examine a few of these manifestations of infidelity. Books have been written about Wojtyla's heterodoxy, and many more will undoubtedly appear in the future. For our purposes it will suffice to cite just as much evidence as would be incompatible with the possession of supernatural faith by Karol Wojtyla.
There are a number of ways of identifying an heretic. One is to take note of propositions expressed by the delinquent which directly contradict dogma. And, in conjunction with these, to show that the culprit is pertinacious (that he knows better). Another is to examine the behaviour of the suspect, and its results, with a view to judging whether it is possibly consistent with that of a Catholic. That is, whether it is consistent with the behaviour and fruits of one who possesses the supernatural virtue of faith. If not, then the suspect is an heretic. “By their fruits ye shall know them.”
I am quite deliberately refraining from proving the case using the more clear-cut direct heresies in Wojtyla's words, for the reasons that it is not necessary to do so, and because that method invites verbal quibbling by defenders of Wojtyla. Such men think that if Wojtyla spouts novelties which are possibly (in their minds) reconcilable with orthodoxy, and which vast numbers receive cheerfully in an unorthodox sense, and to which fact Wojtyla fails to respond in any meaningful way so as to clarify the truth, then Wojtyla can be reasonably said to be orthodox. Nothing could be more absurd. However, to avoid such nonsensical debates, the procedure in this post will be to survey Wojtyla's words and actions, and the fruits of them, and demonstrate that taken together, they constitute proof of his personal lack of the supernatural virtue of faith. That is, they manifest infidelity on his part.
Our Lord has both warned us of wolves in the clothing of sheep, and instructed us how we are to know them with certainty. As was seen in previous posts, the idea that an heretic can only ever be known by his words is utterly unsupported by the theologians and canonists. An heretic can be known with certitude by his actions, signs, and omissions, as much as by his direct words.
Some of Wojtyla's clearly heretical words will in fact be cited, but only as evidence of his completely heterodox animus. Other writers have taken particular statements of his and shown that they are heterodox. (e.g. Professor Corbi on the heresy of Jovinian)
We are aiming at moral certitude in this matter, in accordance with sound criteriology. “That which is morally certain can be conceived of as existing otherwise, and may in fact exist otherwise without the intervention of a miracle, but not without the intervention of a human will which acts in a manner contrary to the normal and rational mode of human conduct, that is, of such conduct as proceeds from the deliberate will of a normal person. The basis and evidence of metaphysical certitude is the very essence of things; that of physical certitude is the constancy of nature; that of moral certitude is the constancy or normal human conduct.
“I am metaphysically certain that a circle cannot be square. I am physically certain that bodies at rest tend to remain at rest. I am morally certain that a man of virtue will not suddenly become vile.” (Msgr. Glenn, Criteriology).
What must be faced squarely is that there are only two possibilities, viz. either Karol Wojtyla is a mistaken Catholic, or he is an heretic. All of the debate and discussion about pertinacity, formal versus material heresy, and the erroneous philosophy which informs Wojtyla's mind, resolves back to the undeniable fact that he is either a mistaken Catholic or he is an heretic. There is no third possibility.
By their fruits ye shall know them
Firstly, some points on the doctrine of the Church regarding the outward profession of the Faith, and also of the manifesting of infidelity. The fundamental truth to be grasped is that supernatural faith must, and does, manifest itself in acts of faith. Acts of faith are the natural conduct that proceeds from the deliberate will of a normal person who possesses supernatural faith.
In the same manner acts of infidelity are the proper effects of infidelity in the mind of the heterodox. They are the natural conduct that proceeds from the deliberate will of a normal person who does not possess supernatural faith.
St. Thomas explains, “the outward utterance is intended to signify the inward thought. Wherefore, just as the inward thought of matters of faith is properly an act of faith, so too is the outward confession of them.” (S. Th. II-II, Q. 3, Art. 1, Resp.)
Then, dealing with the sin of Apostasy, the Angelic Doctor poses this objection: “Further, unbelief is an act of the understanding: whereas apostasy seems rather to consist in some outward deed or utterance, or even in some inward act of the will, for it is written (Prov. 6:12-14): 'A man that is an apostate, an unprofitable man walketh with a perverse mouth. He winketh with the eyes, presseth with the foot, speaketh with the finger. With a wicked heart he deviseth evil, and at all times he soweth discord.' Moreover if anyone were to have himself circumcised, or to worship at the tomb of Mahomet, he would be deemed an apostate. Therefore apostasy does not pertain to unbelief.” (S. Th. II-II, Q. 12, Art. 1, Obj. 2.)
And he answers it as follows: “It belongs to faith not only that the heart should believe, but also that external words and deeds should bear witness to the inward faith, for confession is an act of faith. In this way too, certain external words or deeds pertain to unbelief, in so far as they are signs of unbelief, even as a sign of health is said itself to be healthy. Now although the authority quoted may be understood as referring to every kind of apostate, yet it applies most truly to an apostate from the faith. For since faith is the first foundation of things to be hoped for, and since, without faith it is 'impossible to please God'; when once faith is removed, man retains nothing that may be useful for the obtaining of eternal salvation, for which reason it is written (Prov. 6:12): 'A man that is an apostate, an unprofitable man': because faith is the life of the soul, according to Rom. 1:17: 'The just man liveth by faith.' Therefore, just as when the life of the body is taken away, man's every member and part loses its due disposition, so when the life of justice, which is by faith, is done away, disorder appears in all his members. First, in his mouth, whereby chiefly his mind stands revealed; secondly, in his eyes; thirdly, in the instrument of movement; fourthly, in his will, which tends to evil. The result is that 'he sows discord,' endeavouring to sever others from the faith even as he severed himself.” (S. Th. II-II, Q. 12, Art. 1, Reply Obj. 2. Emphasis added.)
Our Lord told us the same thing, in unmistakeable language. “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit.” Matt. 7:15-18.
Our Lord also told us why men would not hear or speak the truth. “And this is the judgment: Because the light is come into the world and men loved darkness rather than the light: for their works were evil. For every one that doth evil hateth the light and cometh not to the light, that his works may not be reproved.” John, 3:19-20
In other words, heretical activity has a cause, as does all sin: Malice. Men will not act as Catholics because their wills are perverse. They will not speak the truth because they do not believe it. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit.
We have already heard St. John Chrysostom explain these same truths. "'For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.' Here again He indicates His Godhead, which knew their secrets: and that not for words only, but also for wicked thoughts, they shall suffer punishment; and that He knows it all, as God. And He saith, that it is possible even for men to know these things; for this is a natural consequence, that when wickedness is overflowing within, its words should be poured forth through the lips. So that when thou hearest a man speak wicked words, do not suppose only so much wickedness to be in him as the words display, but conjecture the fountain to be much more abundant; for that which is spoken outwardly, is the superabundance of that which is within.” [Emphasis added.]
Omissions of truth and failure to condemn error
Karol Wojtyla signally fails to present the whole truth, even on those occasions when he speaks some truth. He refuses, for example, to employ the consecrated formulae of Catholic theology, preferring novel terms and phrases which leave the truth unclear or which contradict it. Furthermore, he permits the most outrageous heresies to be propagated wholesale, and does nothing practical to prevent it.
What are we to make of a man who seems utterly incapable of speaking the whole truth? What could be the cause of such a strange effect? The Angelic Doctor quotes St. Gregory, “Even as a thoughtless speech gives rise to error, so does an indiscreet silence leave those in error who might have been instructed.” (S. Th. II-II, Q. 10, Art. 7, Resp.)
And, "As Jerome says, 'words spoken amiss lead to heresy'; hence with us and heretics the very words ought not to be in common, lest we seem to countenance their error." (S. Th. III, Q. 16, Art. 8, Resp.)
What kind of man would speak in such a manner that mere thoughtlessness is excluded as a cause, because the truth has already been embodied in canonised formulae by Holy Church, so that to avoid speaking it requires great care? Could a man who thus demonstrates his hatred of truth be reasonably judged to possess the supernatural virtue of faith? Do men gather figs of thistles?
The Apostolic Constitution, Auctorem fidei, of Pope Pius VI, dealt with a similar procedure adopted by the heretical Synod of Pistoia. The Jansenists had declared that scholastic distinctions and terms (such as “transubstantiation”) should be avoided by priests when they are teaching the faithful. Pius VI condemned this approach, as follows. “By such an ill-advised and suspicious omission attention is withdrawn both from an article touching the faith and from an expression consecrated by the Church for the preservation of the said article of faith against the attacks of heretics… [Therefore we condemn it] as dangerous, as detracting from sound exposition of the Catholic truth touching the dogma of Transubstantiation, and as encouraging heresy.”
So much for the procedure itself. What of those who employ it? The Jansenists were heretics.
Another who was anathematised for a similar failure to express the whole truth was Pope Honorius. The Third Council of Constantinople anathematised Honorius as an heretic, and the anathema was confirmed by Pope Leo II, in the following words: "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 Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted." He further explained why Honorius was considered an heretic in a letter to the Spanish bishops: “With Honorius, who did not, as became the Apostolic authority, extinguish the flame of heretical teaching in its first beginning, but fostered it by his negligence."
Clearly, those who foster heresy by omission or by failing to condemn it are to be considered heretics themselves. Honorius, of course, died with a solid reputation – his letter in which he failed to condemn heresy and spoke ambiguously about it was unknown by almost everybody – hence he was not a manifest heretic. He was, apparently, an occult heretic, and therefore he remained pope. However, had the controversy which erupted after his death occurred during his life, the case would have been different. Then, either he could have retracted and proved himself innocent, or he would have been manifestly an heretic, and his papal status lost.
In Wojtyla's case we see manifest heresy over many years, preached urbi et orbi and never clarified by himself in response to the protests of orthodox men. If he was not an heretic then he would defend himself and make clear what he so carefully leaves ambiguous or directly heterodox.
The Spirit of Novelty
Karol Wojtyla is addicted to novelty, in both language and actions.
A love of novelty is a sure sign of heresy. Pope St. Pius X, in Pascendi, insists that “Far, far from the clergy be the love of novelty!” And he quotes his illustrious predecessor, Leo XIII, as follows. "It is impossible to approve in Catholic publications a style inspired by unsound novelty which seems to deride the piety of the faithful and dwells on the introduction of a new order (novus ordo) of Christian life, on new directions of the Church, on new aspirations of the modern soul, on a new social vocation of the clergy, on a new Christian civilization, and many other things of the same kind." Indeed, that sentence could have been written as a succinct description of Vatican II and all its works and popes.
St. Paul, as always, had warned us of the danger of novelty, as follows: “…keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding the profane novelties of words and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called. Which some promising, have erred concerning the faith.” 1 Tim. 6:20-21
Along the same lines St. Pius X had taught, “[The Modernists] 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.''' (Pascendi). Emphasis added.
Pope Gregory XVI, that great predecessor of Ven. Pope Pius IX, condemned the same spirit of novelty, in equally forceful language, in Quo Graviora. Referring to “this very evil sedition of the reformers,” he explained it as follows. “You know, venerable brothers, on what erroneous principles the abovementioned men and their followers depend and where that desire which moves them to begin effecting a revolution in the Church has its origin. We do not think it superfluous to clarify many of those things and to explain them here. A false idea has for a long time grown stronger and spread widely through these regions. This idea is spread by an impious and absurd system of indifference toward religious matters which claims that the Christian religion can become perfect in time. While the patrons of such a false idea are afraid to adapt the shaky possibility of perfection to the truths of faith, they establish it in the external administration and discipline of the Church. Moreover, in order to bring about faith in their error, they wrongfully and deceitfully usurp the authority of Catholic theologians. These theologians propound here and there a distinction between the teaching and the discipline of the Church which underlies this change, that it will always stand firm and never be harmed by any alteration. Once this is established, they state categorically that there are many things in the discipline of the Church in the present day, in its government, and in the form of its external worship which are not suited to the character of our time. These things, they say, should be changed, as they are harmful for the growth and prosperity of the Catholic religion, before the teaching of faith and morals suffers any harm from it. Therefore, showing a zeal for religion and showing themselves as an example of piety, they force reforms, conceive of changes, and pretend to renew the Church.”
And, “They also attacked the pure doctrine which they say they want to keep safe and sound; either they do not understand the situation or craftily pretend not to understand it. While they contend that the entire exterior form of the Church can be changed indiscriminately, do they not subject to change even those items of discipline which have their basis in divine law and which are linked with the doctrine of faith in a close bond? Does not the law of the believer thus produce the law of the doer? Moreover, do they not try to make the Church human by taking away from the infallible and divine authority, by which divine will it is governed? And does it not produce the same effect to think that the present discipline of the Church rests on failures, obscurities, and other inconveniences of this kind? And to feign that this discipline contains many things which are not useless but which are against the safety of the Catholic religion?”
And one final quote from this pearl-encrusted document. “We resolved to discuss these things so that, with the errors of those men revealed, it might become known where the wicked passion for introducing novelties into the Church might lead. As for the rest, it is enough to suggest that the bitterness of the times in which Catholicism now finds itself oppresses Us with many sorrows. We mourn the pure spouse of the immaculate lamb, Jesus Christ, for it is pillaged by the attack of internal and external enemies and by the evils which oppress it and reduce it to this disgraceful captivity. We deplore with unending tears what is done by children shamefully straying from the bosom of a loving mother and uttering lies about her.” Emphasis added throughout.
Novelty, in words or actions, is a sure sign of heresy, or these teachings of the popes are meaningless. And lest it be objected that Karol Wojtyla is unconscious of his own love of novelty, let us hear what he himself has to say on the subject. At the very beginning of his “reign” he declared (in Redemptor Hominis), “Entrusting myself fully to the Spirit of truth, therefore, I am entering into the rich inheritance of the recent pontificates. This inheritance has struck deep roots in the awareness of the Church in an utterly new way, quite unknown previously, thanks to the Second Vatican Council, which John XXIII convened and opened and which was later successfully concluded and perseveringly put into effect by Paul VI, whose activity I was myself able to watch from close at hand.”
And, in Ecclesia Dei, "Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the Council's continuity with Tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church."
Also in Redemptor Hominis, Wojtyla referred as follows to the era following on Vatican II. “We also are in a certain way in a season of a new Advent, a season of expectation…” And he referred to something he calls “the Church's consciousness, which the Council considerably developed, through all levels of this self-awareness…”
Vatican II is, for Wojtyla, "the great beginning - the Advent as it were - of the journey leading us to the threshold of the third millennium." (Ut Unum Sint)
There can be no doubt that Wojtyla loves novelty, for he not only admits to it, but glories in it. Nor could he deny it if he wished. For he and the predecessors he so thoroughly praises have been responsible for the following changes, among others:
It may be objected, by those infected with the spirit of unreality characteristic of defenders of the current heretics, that all of these things are able to be changed by Holy Church, for none of them are substantial, but rather they are merely accidental. But even if it were true, which it patently is not, this objection carries no weight whatsoever in this context, for the argument being put is not that these changes are impossible, but that they are changes. And therefore they manifest the spirit of novelty. And nor is it a sufficient answer to this argument to point out that popes can and have changed certain things in the past. No, the charge is not that Wojtyla has changed things – the charge is that he is addicted to novelty, directly authorising numerous changes himself, permitting or tolerating a spirit of novelty throughout his sect, and when he refers to change he does so only to glory in it. The man's mentality, his animus, is entirely different from the instinctive and sound Catholic mind which abhors novelty, and only permits the smallest incremental changes, and only to non-essential things, after much deliberation and careful study. He is not a Catholic.
Actions speak (even) louder than words
St. Basil, “But why say anything of mere verbal inconsistency? The practical proofs of their change of position afforded by their conduct are far stronger.” (Letter CCXLIV, To Patrophilus, bishop of Aegae.) St. Basil was here referring to men whose words were heterodox, but who, in addition, had declared that they were in communion with others who were already known heretics. Hence he says that if their words were not sufficient to convict them, their actions would settle the matter.
Let us examine the kinds of men Wojtyla tolerates as his “fellow-Catholics” and in fact appoints to positions of “authority” in his sect. Three examples ought to suffice - Walter Kasper, Karl Lehman, and Avery Dulles, all of whom were recently appointed “cardinals” in the New Religion.
"Cardinal" Walter Kasper is one of the numerous liberal "theologians" who follow in the footsteps of heretics like Kung and Schillebeeckx. These men are Modernists in the classical sense of the term, defined by Pope St. Pius X in Pascendi. They speak of an "historical Christ" (to be sought by critical methods) divorced from "the Christ of Faith" (as presented in theology and the Gospels). One of the favourite views of this school is the denial of the miraculous. Hence they cast doubt on, or flatly deny, the miracles of Christ, including the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, and the Transfiguration.
Wojtyla first showed that he favoured Walter Kasper by appointing him bishop of Rottenburg-Stuttgart, and subsequently as Secretary of the “Council for Christian Unity,” one of the chief New Church agencies for promoting heretical ecumenism. He is president of the mixed Catholic-Lutheran Commission that recently formulated the horrible, heretical, “joint declaration on the doctrine of justification.” Wojtyla has also appointed Kasper a consultor, and subsequently a member, of the Congregation of the Doctrine for the Faith, and of the Pontifical Council for Culture. Kasper owes his entire career as a New Church leader to Karol Wojtyla.
Prior to becoming “bishop,” he taught dogmatic theology at the University of Tübingen, and is author of the notoriously Modernist books, "Jesus, the Christ," and "The God of Jesus." Let's take a look at some of his ideas.
In his book, "Jesus, the Christ," Kasper writes, "In the traditional theology the hermeneutic discussions about resurrection testimonies was greatly neglected. It was, in general, regarded as sufficient simply to quote the testimony of faith. Since it was never questioned fundamentally, it was never the subject of fundamental reflection, as was the case with the problem of Incarnation." Thus his introduction of the idea that "traditional theology" was way off the mark.
Kasper's own thesis is that the Resurrection, for example, is not an historical fact, but a later "interpretation" by "the faithful," who imposed their own superstitious ideas on the historical events. Hence he denies the historical character of all four Gospel accounts of the Resurrection. Thus, even though St. Mark's account of the empty tomb is older and less "legendary" than the others, in Kasper's view, "It is clear that in its present form at any rate, it is in no way a historical account." Which is unalloyed heresy.
Kasper argues in favour of his lies with literary arguments. In the Gospel of St. Mark, according to Kasper, the empty tomb text is explained as follows: "We are faced not with historical details but with stylistic devices intended to attract the attention and raise excitement in the minds of those listening. Everything is clearly constructed to lead very skilfully to the climax of the angel's words: 'He is risen, he is not here; see the place where they laid him' (16:6).”
It could be argued that Kasper's greatest claim to fame is the fact that he denies the Resurrection as an historical event. And yet this man has been not only promoted systematically through the ranks of the New Church, but has been made an official consultor to the very agency which is supposed to defend the faith. Worse, he is now one of those in charge of that agency!
Recently this prime heretic made clear his denial of the unity of Holy Church also, along with the necessity of remaining within her for salvation, by asserting that schismatics and heretics ought not to be converted. Astonishing as this might sound, Kasper was only repeating what had already been officially laid down in the notorious Balamand Agreement, and which has been the consistent practice of the New Church in the East, where schismatics are refused admission to the “Church” when they try to convert!
"The decision of Vatican II, to which the Pope adheres and spreads, is absolutely clear: Today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of the ecumenism of a return, by which the others would 'be converted' and return to being 'Catholics.' This was expressly abandoned by Vatican II. Today ecumenism is considered as the common road: all should be converted to the following of Christ, and it is in Christ that we will find ourselves in the end.... Even the Pope, among other things, describes ecumenism in Ut unum sint as an exchange of gifts. I think this is very well said: each Church has its own riches and gifts of the Spirit, and it is this exchange that unity is trying to be achieved and not the fact that we should become 'Protestants' or that the others should become 'Catholics' in the sense of accepting the confessional form of Catholicism." (Walter Kasper, quoted in Adista, Rome, February 26, 2001, p. 9)
Another recently created German "Cardinal," Karl Lehmann, is best known for his pro-abortion stance. Under German law no one is permitted to get an abortion unless they present a certificate testifying that they have had "counselling" from an approved person. The German bishops set up "Catholic" counselling services which issued these certificates to girls who wanted abortions. Without the certificate, no abortion. With the certificate, abortion on demand. This has, reportedly, now ceased, but it lasted for at least four years. The Vatican apparently wrote to Lehman and the other German heretics who were responsible for this outrage, attempting to put an end to it, but the seriousness of the attempt can best be assessed by considering the sanctions applied. None.
The "Catholic World Report" supplies the following fact, in the wake of Lehman's “promotion.” "...the president of the German bishops' conference, has often found himself at odds with the Vatican, particularly on the question of abortion counseling by Church-related agencies. The inclusion of his name, in the Pope's second announcement [of new “cardinals”], provided the biggest surprise of the consistory, and the cardinal-designate [Lehman] wasted no time in claiming that his elevation was a vindication of his efforts." (CWR, March 2001, p. 28).
Thus, not only has Wojtyla promoted a pro-abortionist, but when he was created "Cardinal" one of Lehman's first acts was to claim that his pro-abortion activities were now seen to be vindicated by “rome.” Nor has there been any subsequent protest or clarification by the Vatican.
Avery Dulles is another heretic whose notoriety is, if possible, even greater than the previous two mentioned. He was a theologian of very doubtful orthodoxy under Pius XII, a follower of Yves Congar and other heretics who were busy undermining the true nature of the Catholic Church in an attempt to include heretics and schismatics as members.
Dulles' book, Models of the Church (Dublin: Gill and MacMillan, 1988), outlines his false ecclesiology, and demonstrates beyond any doubt his heretical animus. He not only puts forward false definitions of the Church, but he impiously refutes the true, traditional, definition as given by the scholastics and by St. Robert Bellarmine.
He writes, “In the period between approximately 1600 and the year 1940, Catholic ecclesiology had one dominant model or 'paradigm' for describing and understanding the nature of the Church. That model was the secular political society, the State. It is the model that Robert Bellarmine presented in his classic definition of the Church in De Contoversiis (1588): 'The one and true Church is the community of men brought together by the profession of the same Christian faith and participation in the same sacraments under the authority of legitimate pastors and especially of the one Vicar of Christ on earth, the Roman Pontiff.... The one true Church is as visible and palpable as the Kingdom of France or the republic of Venice.'
“This definition, which enumerated only the visible and structural characteristics of the Church, did not fully express Bellarmine's concept of the Church. But it was this definition which Catholicism took to itself with enthusiasm in the following centuries, sometimes referring to the Church as the 'perfect society'. It is the model that is found in Cardinal Gasparri's Catechism (1932), which intentionally reflects Pius XI's Mortalium Animos (1928). We will generally refer to this model as the 'political society model'.
“It was a serviceable model in the Counter-Reformation period. … But the emphasis on visible, institutional characteristics alone together with its polemical, exclusivist intent makes it a very deficient model of the Church. … This model was dominant for far too long, with serious effects on Church life. It fostered what Yves Congar has called a 'hierarchology' rather than an ecclesiology. With this went a corresponding over-emphasis on authority and a corresponding lack of lay involvement in the life and mission of the Church. Much heroic missionary activity was undertaken in the period, but the aim was generally to build up the Church society on earth, efforts to save souls being directed precisely to bringing more and more people into the Church society. Success for the missionary, and for the pastor at home as well, was measured in statistics of conversions, baptisms, regular attendance and communions. Bishop de Smedt was describing succinctly the effects of this model when he criticised the first preliminary schema on the Church presented to the Fathers at Vatican II, using the words 'clericalism, juridicism, and triumphalism'.” Emphasis added throughout.
Certainly it would be difficult to find passages in other books which are more openly contemptuous of Catholic tradition, of Catholic theology, of Catholic missionary activity, of papal teachings as presented in Encyclicals, or of the Spotless Bride of Christ itself in all her glory. The promotion of Avery Dulles was also significant in that he is too old to vote as a “cardinal” in the New Church, so that the red hat is manifestly nothing but a reward for his life and work in service of heresy.
Other actions of Karol Wojtyla which unambiguously signify heresy are his excommunications against Bishop de Castro Mayer, and Archbishop Lefebvre. In that case he faced a clear challenge to his orthodoxy, and to that of the whole Vatican II revolt. His response was equally clear – the revolution is here to stay, and will brook no opposition. In these crimes we see the flip-side to Wojtyla's promotion and toleration of outright heretics, which is his total intolerance of orthodox men. Could anything be clearer?
Acts of Apostasy
Karol Wojtyla has travelled the world committing acts of apostasy and irreligion in numerous countries and with manifold false religions. Each one of these acts proves, on its own, that he does not possess the supernatural virtue of faith. They include:
Heresy, schism, and complete chaos constitute “new life”
There are those who would picture Karol Wojtyla as an embattled conservative, bravely fighting the criminals who have been responsible for the almost-total destruction of the Catholic religion since Vatican II. This strange view implies that Wojtyla himself is saddened and outraged by the same things which afflict traditional Catholics. The truth, however, is that he thinks that the fruits of Vatican II are good and he wishes us to believe that they come from the Holy Ghost. Here are some extracts from Wojtyla's first encyclical, Redemptor Hominis.
“I must keep all this in mind at the beginning of my pontificate as a reason for giving thanks to God, for warmly encouraging all my brothers and sisters and for recalling with heartfelt gratitude the work of the Second Vatican Council and my great predecessors, who set in motion this new surge of life for the Church…”
And, “By following the example of my venerable Predecessor in choosing [the names, John and Paul], I wish like him to express my love for the unique inheritance left to the Church by Popes John XXIII and Paul VI and my personal readiness to develop that inheritance with God's help.”
Finally, regarding ecumenism, “To all who, for whatever motive, would wish to dissuade the Church from seeking the universal unity of Christians the question must once again be put: Have we the right not to do it? Can we fail to have trust - in spite of all human weakness and all the faults of past centuries - in our Lord's grace as revealed recently through what the Holy Spirit said and we heard during the Council?”
Does Wojtyla hold to any dogma at all?
There are numerous examples of Karol Wojtyla's public infidelity, some of which have been reviewed here, and taken together they produce a startling conclusion: Judging by his words and actions there is no single Catholic doctrine which he evidently believes.
That is to say, that even on those matters upon which most men agree he might be orthodox, he fails to employ the canonised formulae of Catholic theology to express himself. When he speaks of the evil of contraception, he mentions the mutual love of husband and wife, and the fruitfulness which this love should enjoy. But he never defines the primary purpose of marriage as the procreation and education of children. And yet that is Catholic doctrine, and clearly directly relevant to the evil of contraception. So, even if he is really opposed to contraception, and certain of his words would have us believe that, he posits a false or insubstantial basis for his position, thus wrecking the integrity of the Catholic doctrine on the matter. Whatever he believes about this subject, one thing is quite certain – it would be unreasonable to form the judgement that he is certainly orthodox on it. For he provides no sufficient evidence for such a judgement.
Furthermore, Wojtyla equates the secondary purpose of marriage, mutual love and support, with the primary purpose, which is the procreation and education of children. And in fact he usually places them in the wrong order even when he does mention both. He will speak of “the goods of marriage,” but never of the primary purpose of marriage. He will refer to the "conjugal act which is per se suitable for the generation of children to which marriage is ordered by its nature.” But not “to which marriage is ordered as its primary purpose.” Thus he is not just doubtfully orthodox on the matter of contraception, he is clearly unorthodox on the intimately connected truth of the very nature and purpose of marriage.
Likewise is his explanation of the priesthood. Wojtyla will mention transubstantiation. He will speak about the Holy Eucharist (usually without the qualifying “Holy”). But he will not speak about a sacrificing priesthood. His priests are sent to preach. They are called to perfection. They are leaders of the flock. But they do not offer sacrifice (except, “self-sacrifice”). Pope Leo XIII, speaking of the Anglican Ordinal, explains, “For this reason, in the whole Ordinal not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice, of consecration, of the priesthood (sacerdotium), and of the power of consecrating and offering sacrifice but, as we have just stated, every trace of these things which had been in such prayers of the Catholic rite as they had not entirely rejected, was deliberately removed and struck out. In this way, the native character or spirit as it is called of the Ordinal clearly manifests itself.” (Apostolicae Curae).
The same judgement follows inexorably from any objective evaluation of Wojtyla's public pronouncements on Holy Orders – he does not believe, apparently, in a sacrificing priesthood. He will, very occasionally, refer to “sacrifice” and “priesthood” in one place, but then he immediately speaks about self-sacrifice instead of the Sacrifice of the Cross. It is patent that Wojtyla is very careful to avoid the notion of a sacrificing priesthood in its proper signification.
And the reason is not impatient of discovery. For Wojtyla, the Incarnation is that “mystery” by which “man is revealed to himself,” rather than by which Christ became man, and thus (among other things) revealed God and His truths to man. And the objective of the priesthood, and indeed the entire spiritual life and economy of “salvation,” is presented as an effort by God to make man, “more human.” (Cf. Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens). In the Catholic religion God is central – we exist for Him, and our priests offer sacrifice to Him. All is for the greater glory of God. In Wojtyla's pantheon, religion exists for man; man is central, and what is aimed at is that man should become “more human.” God is restricted to acting for these ends. Hence the priest faces the people when he conducts a service; the tabernacle has been replaced by a chair; the priest's role as counsellor, leader, preacher, is emphasised; the priest presides over a group of peers; the priesthood of the laity is mentioned constantly and emphasised falsely; the Holy Eucharist is primarily food, not sacrifice.
Thus we see that even when using traditional terms, such as “priesthood,” or “Incarnation,” or “Eucharist,” Wojtyla significantly fails to present clearly the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church.
Hence it seems more than fair to issue the challenge to any of those who think that Karol Wojtyla is a Catholic:– Cite a doctrine he certainly holds with divine and Catholic faith, and prove it from his public statements and actions, taking into account his ambiguous statements on the question at issue, his flatly contradictory statements on the matter, and his failure to express the doctrine clearly employing the consecrated formulae of Catholic theology. I don't believe it can be done, and if it can, then it will prove to be a rare exception.
So much for the formidable challenge which confronts defenders of Wojtyla's claims.
Karol Wojtyla knows better
Some have maintained that Karol Wojtyla might believe that his heresies are in fact Catholic doctrine. However, he received a Doctorate in Sacred Theology from the Angelicum (Rome) in 1948 under the guidance of Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, one of the few real Thomists of that era. In fact, Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange was openly anti-Modernist, and caused a huge controversy at that time by publishing a refutation of heretical arguments which were being spread by hand among theologians and students in unpublished tracts. For this action Garrigou-Lagrange was viciously attacked by the Modernists, who asserted that it was “unfair” to publish what had previously only been privately circulated. The Modernists had their final answer when Pope Pius XII alluded, in strong terms, to these tracts, in Humani Generis, thus vindicating Garrigou-Lagrange. Karol Wojtyla was an eye-witness to these events, in daily contact with Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, who was the sponsor of his doctoral thesis.
In the light of these facts, it cannot seriously be maintained that JP2 is unaware of the conflict between his Modernist heresies and Catholic doctrine. All canonists teach that if a man is aware of the conflict between his own doctrines and Catholic doctrine, then he is pertinacious. That is the very definition of pertinacity.
Cardinal de Lugo, whom St. Alphonsus considered to be second only to St. Thomas as a theologian, explains this principle. "...Neither is it always demanded in the external forum that there be a warning and a reprimand as described above for somebody to be punished as heretical and pertinacious, and such a requirement is by no means always admitted in practice by the Holy Office. For if it could be established in some other way, given that the doctrine is well known, given the kind of person involved and given the other circumstances, that the accused could not have been unaware that his thesis was opposed to the Church, he would be considered as a heretic from this fact… The reason for this is clear because the exterior warning can serve only to ensure that someone who has erred understands the opposition which exists between his error and the teaching of the Church. If he knew the subject through books and conciliar definitions much better than he could know it by the declarations of someone admonishing him then there would be no reason to insist on a further warning for him to become pertinacious against the Church." (Disp. XX, sect. IV, n. l57-158)
Summary of the Case
Therefore Karol Wojtyla must be counted an heretic or apostate.
Therefore it is impossible that he can believe in a Sacred Deposit entrusted to the Church by Jesus Christ and which must be zealously protected from all taint of novelty.
So that, it is manifest that he agrees with the heterodox and violently disagrees with the orthodox; and thinks it good to provide the heterodox with positions of influence over the “faithful,” whilst ensuring that the orthodox are stripped of authority in the eyes of the “faithful.” These can only be the actions of an heretic.
Has diligently travelled the world committing acts of worship with every conceivable form of false religion, from Animism to Judaism.
Therefore he proves that he believes all religions to be more or less (not “equally”) good and praiseworthy. But this was defined by Pope Pius XI (Mortalium Animos) as equivalent to abandoning the divinely revealed religion, the very definition of apostasy.
No Catholic could think that the fruits of Vatican II are good, or that the ambiguities and lies of Vatican II were the work of the Spirit of Truth.
So that, it is impossible to prove that Karol Wojtyla holds any truth of the Catholic religion with divine and Catholic faith. He is not a Catholic.
Was educated at the Angelicum, receiving his doctorate under the guidance of a solid, anti-Modernist Thomist, in the midst of serious controversies which were settled by papal authority in the encyclical Humani Generis.
Therefore Karol Wojtyla cannot possibly be said to be ignorant of the truth, but rather he must be judged to be pertinacious in his heresy.
Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
“That which is morally certain can be conceived of as existing otherwise, and may in fact exist otherwise without the intervention of a miracle, but not without the intervention of a human will which acts in a manner contrary to the normal and rational mode of human conduct, that is, of such conduct as proceeds from the deliberate will of a normal person.” (Msgr. Glenn, Criteriology).
Karol Wojtyla's words and actions are the words and actions of an heretic. All traditionalists are agreed on that. However, many traditionalist say that despite this manifest fact, we cannot be certain that he is actually an heretic. According to the principles of sound criteriology, however, the only way that this position can be maintained is if we assert that Karol Wojtyla is not a normal person. In other words, that Karol Wojtyla's actions are, in their essential causes, contrary to the normal and rational mode of human conduct. Now, this may be true – criteriology does not insist that all men act rationally and normally.
But criteriology does require that if we are to believe that a given individual's actions arise from irrational or abnormal causes, then there must be evidence for that judgement. What evidence do we have that Karol Wojtyla is actually abnormal or irrational? None. All agree that he is supremely intelligent, competent in numerous languages, highly educated in theology, a masterful diplomat and manager of men, and in fact rather witty. There has never been any serious suggestion by either friends or enemies that he is irrational. And if such proof is forthcoming, that Wojtyla is in fact mad, then he is not pope for that reason also, for all of the authorities agree that madmen cannot be popes.
Karol Wojtyla is, without any doubt at all, an heretic. His heresy is more than manifest, it is notorious. That is, “it is publicly known and was committed under such circumstances that no manoeuvre can conceal nor legal defence excuse it.” (Canon 2197).
“Karol Wojtyla is not the pope.”
Major: Manifest heretics cannot be popes
Minor: But Karol Wojtyla is manifest heretic
Conclusion: Therefore Karol Wojtyla is not the pope
The major was proved in Part VI. The minor was proved in Parts VII and VIII. The conclusion follows.