I. A latitudinarist (indifferentist) and ecumenical conception of the Church
The concept of the Church as "the People of God" is hereafter found in many official documents: the acts of the Council, Unitatis Redintegratio, Lumen Gentium; the 1983 code of Canon Law (c. 204.1); the letter of Pope John Paul II, Cathechesi Tradendae; the allocution in the Anglican Church at Canterbury; the ecumenical directory, Ad Totam Ecclesiam of the Secretariat for the Unity of Christians. It [this conception] breathes a latitudinarist interpretation and a false ecumenism.
The facts manifest with evidence this heterodox conception: the authorizations for the construction of rooms which are destined for religious pluralism; the edition of ecumenical Bibles which no longer conforms to Catholic exegesis; the ecumenical ceremonies like those of Canterbury.
In Unitatis Redintegratio, it is taught that the division of Christians...:
"... is for the world an object of scandal and the obstacle of the preaching of the Gospel to all creatures... that the Holy Spirit does not refuse to make use of other religions as means of salvation."
This same error is repeated in the document Cathechesi Tradendae of Pope John Paul II. It is in the same spirit and with affirmations contrary to the traditional faith that Pope John Paul II declared at the Cathedral of Canterbury, May 25, 1982, "that the promise of Christ inspires us with confidence that the Holy Spirit will heal the divisions introduced into the Church from the first times at Pentecost" as though the unity of the Credo had never existed in the Church.
The concept of the "People of God" leads to belief that Protestantism is none other than a particular form of the same Christian religion.
The Second Vatican Council teaches "a true union in the Holy Spirit" with heretical sects (Lumen Gentium, 14); "a certain, though imperfect, communion with them" (Unitatis Redintegratio, 3).
This ecumenical unity contradicts the Encyclical Satis Cognitum of Pope Leo XIII which teaches that:
"Jesus did not found a Church made up of a number of communities that were generically similar, yet separate and without those bonds of unity which make the Church one and invisible."
Similarly, this ecumenical unity is contrary to the Encyclical Humani Generis of Pope Pius XII, which condemns the idea of reducing to a vague formula the necessity of belonging to the Catholic Church. It is also contrary to the Encyclical Mystici Corporis of the same Pope which condemns the conception of a "pneumatic" Church which would be an invisible bond unifying the separated communities in the faith.
This ecumenism is equally contrary to the teachings of Pope Pius XI in the Encyclical Mortalium Animos. Concerning this point it is timely to expose and reject a certain false opinion which is at the origin of this problem and of this complex movement by the means of which non-Catholics strive to obtain a union of Christian churches. Those who adhere to this opinion constantly cite these words of Christ: "That they all may be one... and there shall be one fold and one shepherd" (Jn. 17:21 and 10:16), and they claim that by these words Christ expresses a desire or a prayer which has never been realized. In fact, they claim that the unity of faith and of government, which is one of the marks of the true Church of Christ, in a practical manner, up to today does not exist.
This ecumenism condemned by Catholic morality and law, now manages to permit the reception of the sacraments of Penance, Holy Eucharist and Extreme Unction from "non-Catholic ministers" (canon 844, 1983 Code of Canon Law), and encourages "ecumenical hospitality" by authorizing Catholic ministers to give the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist to non-Catholics.
All these things are contrary to Divine Revelation which stipulates the "separation" and rejects the union "between light and darkness, between the faithful and the unbeliever, between the temple of God and that of sects" (II Cor. 6:14-18).
II. The Collegial-Democratic Government of the Church
Having undermined the unity of the faith, the Modernists of today strive to undermine the unity of government and the hierarchical structure of the Church.
The doctrine, already insinuated by the document Lumen Gentium of Vatican Council II, is taken up again, explicitly, by the 1983 Code of Canon Law (c. 336). According to this doctrine, the College of Bishops united with the Pope, has an equal possession of the supreme authority in the Church, in a habitual and constant manner.
This doctrine - of a double supreme authority - is contrary to the teaching and to the practice of the Magisterium of the Church, especially in Vatican Council (DS 3055) [i.e. Denzinger-Schonmetzer, edition of the Enchiridion Symbolorum - Ed.], and in the Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum. The People alone has this supreme authority in which he can communicate, in the measure which he judges expedient and in extraordinary circumstances.
To this grave error is attached the democratic orientation of the Church, with the power residing in the "People of God" such as it is defined in the 1983 Code of Canon Law. This Jansenist error is condemned by the Bull Auctorem Fidei of Pope Pius VI.
This tendency to cause the "base" to participate in the exercise of power is found in the institution of the synodal and episcopal conferences, in the priestly councils, and in the multiplication of Roman commissions and national commissions, as in the heart of religious congregations (concerning this, see Vatican Council I, DS 3061; 1983 Code of Canon Law, c. 447).
The source of the anarchy and disorder which today reign throughout the Church is to be found in this degradation of authority.
III. The False Natural Rights of Man
The Declaration Dignitatis Humanae of Vatican Council II, affirms the existence of a false natural right of man in religious matters, contrary to the pontifical teachings which repudiate such a blasphemy.
Thus Pope Pius IX in his Encyclical Quanta Cura and the Syllabus: Pope Leo XIII in his Encyclical Libertas Praestantissimum and Immortale Dei, Pope Pius XII in his allocution, La Riesce, to the Italian Catholic jurists, deny that reason and revelation found a similar right.
Vatican II professes, in a universal manner, that "The Truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own Truth." This is formally opposed to the teaching of Pope Pius VI against the Jansenists of the Council of Pistoia (Ds 2604). The Second Vatican Council thus arrives at the absurdity of affirming the right not to adhere, and not to follow the Truth, in order to oblige civil governments to no longer discriminate for religious motives, thus establishing a juridical equality between false religions and the true one.
These doctrines, which have already been condemned by Pope St. Pius X in Our Apostolic Mandate, are founded on a false conception of human dignity which comes from the agnostic and materialistic pseudo-philosophers of the French Revolution.
Vatican II says that from religious liberty will emerge an era of stability for the Church. Pope Gregory XVI affirms, on the contrary, that it is a supreme impudence to affirm that immoderate freedom of opinion would be beneficial for the Church.
The Council expresses in Gaudium et Spes a false principle when it says that human and Christian dignity came from the fact of the Incarnation, which has restored this dignity for all men. This same error is affirmed in the Encyclical Redemptor Hominis of Pope John Paul II.
The consequences of the recognition by the Council of these false "Rights of Men" destroys the foundations of the social reign of Our Lord. They undermined the authority and power of the Church in its mission to cause Our Lord to reign in souls and in hearts, for the Church must direct the battle against the satanic forces which subjugate souls. The missionary spirit will be accused of exaggerated proselytism.
The neutrality of States in religious matters is injurious for Our Lord and His Church, when it is a question of States with a Catholic majority.
IV. The Absolute Authority of the Pope
Most certainly the authority of the pope in the Church is a supreme authority, but it cannot be absolute and without limits, since it is subordinate to Divine Authority, which is expressed in Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the definitions already promulgated by the ecclesiastical Magisterium (DS 3116).
The authority of the pope is subordinate and limited by the end for which this authority has been given to him. This end is clearly defined by Pope Pius IX in the Constitution Pastor Aeternus of Vatican Council I (DS 3070). It would be an intolerable abuse of power to modify the Constitution of the Church and, in doing so, pretend to appeal to the rights of man against the Divine Right, as in religious liberty, as in the eucharistic hospitality which is authorized in the new Canon Law, as in the assertion of two supreme authorities in the Church.
It is clear that in these cases and in other similar cases, it is the duty for each member of the clergy and each faithful Catholic to resist and to refuse obedience. Blind obedience is a contrary sense and no one is exempt from his responsibilities for having obeyed man rather than God (DS 3115). This resistance must be public if the evil is public and an object of scandal to souls (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II, II, Q.33, A.4).
The above statements are elementary principles of ethics. They regulate the relations of subjects with all legitimate authority.
Moreover this resistance finds a confirmation in the fact that henceforth those who hold firmly to Tradition and the Catholic Faith are penalized; those who profess doctrines which are heterodox, or who effects sacrileges are in no way troubled.
That is the logic of an abuse of authority.
V. Protestant Notion of the Mass
The new notion of the Church, such as Pope John Paul II defined it in the Constitution which precedes the 1983 Code of Canon Law, evokes a profound alteration in the principal act of the Church, which is the Sacrifice of the Mass. The definition of new ecclesiology gives exactly the definition of the New Mass: it is a collegial and ecumenical service and communion. The New Mass cannot be better defined and the New Mass, just as the new Conciliar Church, is a profound rupture with the Tradition and Magisterium of the Church.
It is a conception more Protestant than Catholic and it explains all that which had been unduly exalted and all that which has been diminished.
Contrary to the teaching of the Council of Trent in its 22nd session, contrary to the Encyclical Mediator Dei of Pope Pius XII, the role of the faithful in the participation of the Mass has been exaggerated, and the role of the priest, now become a simple president, has been diminished. The importance of the Liturgy of the Word has been exaggerated, and the importance of the propitiatory Sacrifice has been diminished. The meal of the community has been exalted and the Mass has been laicized, to the detriment of the respect and the faith in the Real Presence by transubstantiation.
By the suppression of the sacred language, the rites have been infinitely multiplied. They have been profaned by worldly and pagan additions. False translations have been propagated to the detriment of the true faith and the true piety of the faithful.
And yet the Councils of Florence and Trent had pronounced anathemas against all these changes and they had affirmed that the Canon of our Mass goes back to Apostolic times.
Pope St. Pius V and Clement VIII had insisted upon the necessity of avoiding changes and mutations, by perpetually keeping this Roman Rite consecrated by Tradition.
The removal from the Mass of that which is sacred, and its laicization have led to the laicization, in a Protestant manner, of the priesthood.
The liturgical reform in a Protestant style is one of the greatest errors of the Conciliar Church and one of the most ruinous for the Faith and grace.
VI. The Free Diffusion of Errors and Heresies
The situation of the Church, its state searching, has introduced , in practice, the freethinking of Protestantism. This is the result of the multiplicity of credos at the interior of the Church. The supression of the Holy Office, of the Index, of the Anti-Modernist Oath, has provoked among modern theologians a need for new theories which bewilder the faithful and induce them toward the charismatic movement, pentecostalism and base communities. It is a true revolution, ultimately directed against the authority of God and the Church. Grave modern errors which remain condemned by the popes are now freely developing at the interior of the Church: