Letter to Patricia
A letter written to a new friend -- then a recent convert --
explaining why we must resist Modernism.
Rev. Fr. Charles T. Brusca
Boca Raton, Florida 33486
30 September, 1995
St. Jerome, D.C.
Thank you for your telephone call last night. You asked me to
put together some sort of an explanation of how I relate to Pope John
Paul II and the "mainstream" Catholic Church. I hope this won't turn
out to be too much of a "magnum opus" -- you are asking me to do
something vaguely akin to "define the universe and give three
examples" -- but here goes.
Wherever possible, I will try to refer to the literature of the
modern church in order to support the claims I am making about their
changes in belief. I would strongly suggest reading the actual
documents if you have the time. Commentaries on the documents, even
those issued by the Vatican, often do not adequately describe the
works on which they are based. And the newspaper and magazine
accounts of the documents are even worse, often written by
incompetents and based on the summaries instead of the source
documents. When you read modern church documents be sure to have
plenty of strong coffee available. They tend to be considerably
longer than similar documents written in the "old days." I am
getting ahead of myself, but will tell you that I suspect that this
obfuscation is purposeful -- it moves people to accept them without
knowing their contents.
Another important thing to keep in mind is that the Modernists
(more on Modernism will follow) purposefully combine truth and
falsehood in their writings. They do so, first of all, because all
believable lies must contain large proportions of truth in order to
go undetected. Printing the truth in proximity to the intended
falsehoods also allows them to silence those critical of the errors;
they can always say, "you misinterpret what I say, and anyone can see
that my position is supported by the tradition of the Church" (found
in the truthful, red herring, passages). Pope Saint Pius X said of
the Modernists: "One page of their works could be signed by a
Catholic, turn the page and you think you are reading a
I am going to assume that you and I both accept as fact that
Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, became a
human being in order to redeem us and convey what God wanted man to
know about Him and how He wanted man to behave. After spending 33
years, and before He departed this earth, Our Lord established His
Church, with St. Peter as its human head. St. Peter, in turn passed
on this role of leadership to those who followed him as bishop of
Rome or Pope.
The Church enjoys the privilege of "indefectibility"; which is
to say that it will be protected against a general failure in
achieving its mission of bringing souls to God. "Upon this rock (petra) I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not
prevail against it." (Matt. 16) "I will be with you all days, even
to the consummation of the world." (Matt. 28) It should be obvious
that while the Church will always be available some where in some
form, it may not always have the same external appearance, and the
rejection of Its message by individuals does not constitute a failure
on Its part. To use the modern idiom, our Lord has promised that
"the devil will never put the Church completely out of business."
Note that "indefectibility" refers to the Church as an
organization, not to any one individual. It does not imply
"impeccability," or freedom from sin on the part of its leaders -- no
one denies that bad men have, from time to time, ruled the Church.
"Indefectibility" does not imply that Church leaders will always make
the right strategic decisions, nor that they will be orthodox in
their private beliefs and teaching. Indeed, it is sometimes -- not
quite jokingly -- said that the continued existence of the Church in
spite of its leaders is proof of divine protection.
Peter and his successors enjoy the charism known as
"infallibility," a gift that keeps them from giving out a false
doctrine or moral teaching when one of them speaks as head of the
Church to all Christians. It keeps them from uttering error, but
does not cause them to know the truth by any special means other than
the careful study of God's revelation as it is contained in the
Scriptures and the Tradition of the Church. The Pope (or the bishops
together with the Pope) is (are) infallible when "exercising the
extraordinary magisterium of the Church; that is when claiming to
teach all men with this divine protection from error.
The Pope and bishops are also infallible (together or
separately) when "exercising the ordinary magisterium" of the Church;
that is when the contents of their teaching are in agreement with
each other and with that of the popes and bishops who have
gone before them.
Much of what I have just said about the conditions for the
authentic teaching of the Church stems from the nature of truth
itself. For example, truth must apply to all people; a doctrinal or
moral proposition cannot be true for Czechoslovakians and false for
Frenchmen. Likewise, such a proposition cannot be false yesterday,
true today, and false again tomorrow; for moral and doctrinal truth
is the reality of what is in the unchanging mind of God. Thus a
proposition that is capable of being defined infallibly, by its very
nature, is not capable of being changed by future popes or councils
It should also be noted that the things that are the subjects of
the Church's magisterium (ordinary or extraordinary) are of the
utmost importance. Our Lord became man and died on the Cross so that
we might know them. They are the things that our loving God wants us
to know about Himself, and to do in the conduct of our lives. Should
anyone teach something contrary to what has been authentically
defined by the magisterium, we are obligated to resist or
ignore them. No one can oblige us to believe what is false
about God, or to act in a manner contrary to His commands. "If an
angel from heaven should preach a gospel to you other than that which
we have preached to you, let him be anathema!" (Galatians 1)
If I might digress for a moment, it is important to distinguish
the unchangeable pronouncements of the magisterium on faith and
morals from two other kinds of pronouncement; pronouncements on
knowledge and pronouncements on discipline:
Defective knowledge might, for example, cause theologians to be
misinformed about the sun, earth, and stars -- which, in turn, might
cause them to misinterpret biblical passages concerning these things.
More certain knowledge might bring about the revision of such
(mis)interpretations. Likewise, a mistaken knowledge of reproductive
biology might have led medieval theologians to conclude that a child
receives a soul only after the passage of time in the womb of the
mother (they thought of the child as a seed that took some number of
days to sprout) -- the theologians may change their conclusion based
on better facts, but they may not change the moral principles by
which those facts are evaluated.
The Church also has the power to make binding legislation as
to discipline, and to change such disciplinary laws when appropriate.
For example, the Church might prescribe abstinence from fish on
Fridays at one time, change the abstinence to Wednesdays at another
time, and abolish it altogether at another time. (There is, of
course, an implied obligation to institute or change such practices
only for good reason.)
At the end of the 19th century the Church recognized that there
was a growing movement (called "Modernism") which held that all forms
of truth were subject to change. In brief, the Modernists held that
all truth of a doctrinal or moral nature was based on human feelings
or intuitions; that the morality of divorce, for example, depended
upon how people felt about divorce. Or, one God might be adequate
for an isolated Christian society, but several gods might be
necessary for a world society with open boundaries, by way of another
example. "Truth," at the moment, is determined by the consensus of
the moment. (The Gallop Pollster is infallible, rather than the
Pope!) For the Modernist, "truth" is ever evolving.
Modernism was condemned by Pope Pius IX in his "Syllabus of the
principal errors of our time," which is a catalog of the mistaken
ideas of the Modernists. Its theoretical principles were more
carefully explained and condemned again by Pope Saint Pius X in his
encyclical Pascendi Dominici gregis, of September 8th 1907. Pius X
also authorized a second syllabus of Modernist errors, called Lamentabili
sane, and issued by the Holy Office on July 3rd,
1907. Saint Pius referred to Modernism as "the synthesis of all
errors," since it is not just one or more errors but an attack on
truth itself. An "Oath against Modernism" was to be required of
all men ordained to major orders, and of all those holding pastoral
or teaching positions.
There are two errors that are related to Modernism, and which
figure into the current problem. The first is a sort of pantheism
taught by the Jesuit Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Teilhard's works
were placed under a "monitum," or "warning" by the Holy Office in the
1950s (in the 1910s he would have been shot!), but became very
popular after Vatican II. They suggest that mankind is collectively
evolving into god -- I use the lower case "g" purposefully since
Teilhard's god is more of a cosmic consciousness or soul of the
universe than the God we know. Teilhard had some impact on the
Vatican II document Gaudium et spes on "The Church in the Modern
World," but I think his influence has diminished somewhat except
in New Age circles.
A second error, related to Modernism (and Marxism) and very much
with us is Existentialism. In traditional Catholic teaching, man's
purpose for existing is defined in terms of God: "Man was created to
show forth God's glory in this world and to share His happiness in
the next." Traditionally, man's perfection is likewise measured in
terms of God -- how much did he know God, love God, and serve God?
Existentialism, on the other hand, measures man in terms of man: Man
is "authentic" insofar as he makes proper use of his "freedom."
Man's perfection is measured in terms of human industry -- how much
did he build for mankind, learn for mankind, love for mankind, etc.?
[Traditionally, man is what he is because he has an "essence" or
"nature" established by God -- existentialist man defines himself
through his activities (see footnote 28).]
If you are with me so far, you will see that I have tried to
give a thumbnail sketch of how the teaching authority of the Church
is supposed to work, and how it relates to the immutable nature of
truth. I am going to "change course" a bit now and list some of the
major ways in which the new church has changed or subverted major
articles of Catholic faith and morality. This is not an exhaustive
Perhaps the primary error -- because it comes so close to taking
the heresy of Modernism and making it into a dogma of the new
religion -- is that of Religious Liberty. Traditionally, the Church
holds that since It alone teaches the truth, all other religions
represent a dangerous compromise with error. It forces no one to
become a Catholic (you can't control someone's mind), but reserves
the right to keep non-believers from spreading their errors and from
publicly acting in accord with an incorrect moral code. (The
discussion assumes that the Church is in a political position to say
or do something about such matters.) To a modern American this
sounds like a rerun of the Spanish Inquisition, but a little
reflection will remind you that virtually all of the nations of the
world functioned in this manner until very recently. Even here in
these United States we had laws which regulated immoral acts like
contraception, divorce, sodomy, abortion, and suicide -- only in the
past fifty years or so have they been eliminated or greatly
Now you might, correctly, point out that even today the Church
strongly disapproves of the immoral acts listed immediately above.
In fact It does, but you will find a contradictory statement in Dignitatis
humanae, the Vatican II declaration on Religious
This Vatican Synod declares that the human person has a
right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men
are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of
social groups and of any human power, in such wise that in
matters religious no one is to be forced to act in a manner
contrary to his own beliefs. Nor is anyone to be restrained
from acting in accordance with his own beliefs, whether
privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with
others, within due limits. (emphasis added) 
Now, the phrase "within due limits" and other statements that
hold that the State may protect itself and its citizens from harm
perpetrated in the name of religion might seem to make this statement
harmless enough -- but who defines the "due limits" in a society with
religious liberty? certainly not the Catholic Church nor any other
Christian body. At best the "due limits" might be determined by the
Gallop Poll, but in practice such limits are usually determined by
politicians, lobbyists, bankers, and lawyers. (e.g. Kennedy, Cuomo,
Rockefeller, Earl Warren, etc.) And guess who decides which
religions are or are not harmful to the public?
In Sacred Scripture the psalmist teaches that Christ is to be
regarded as King in a literal manner:
The Lord said to Me: "Thou art My Son; this day I have
begotten Thee. Ask of Me and I will give Thee the nations for
an inheritance, and the ends of the earth for Thy possession.
Thou shalt rule them with an iron rod; Thou shalt shatter them
like an earthen dish." And now, O kings, give heed; take
warning, you rulers of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear,
and rejoice before Him; with trembling pay homage to Him.
Pope Pius XI in establishing the liturgical feast of Christ the King
tells us that:
... it is of the Catholic Faith to believe that Jesus
Christ has been given to men as Redeemer in whom we are to
believe, and as a Lawgiver whom we are to obey.... Anyone
would err gravely, on the other hand, who would take away from
Christ as man the rule over civil affairs, since He has been
given by the Father such complete power over created things
that all are subject to His will.
By the mid 1970s, the few remaining Catholic countries in the
world amended their constitutions to conform to Vatican II and ceased
being officially Catholic. Even the Vatican concordat with Italy was
amended to reflect a change in the spiritual status previously
enjoyed by the City of Rome. This must have been particularly
difficult in South American countries like Ecuador, previously a
republic dedicated in its Constitution to the Sacred Heart of Jesus;
or Argentina, where the Blessed Virgin Mary was legally Commander in
Chief of the Armed Forces. (Guess which formerly Catholic continent
is rapidly becoming Protestant, and which Armed Force got "creamed"
by Queen Elizabeth's troops after losing their Commander in Chief.)
Closely connected to the error of Religious Liberty is the error
of Religious Indifferentism, the idea that all religions are of equal
value or that it is permissible to just ignore the differences
between them. Traditionally, the Church insisted that "there is no
salvation outside the Catholic Church." Grant for the moment that
there might have been some minor discussion about just who was
"outside the Church," and how much ignorance of the Church might
excuse one from membership -- but the adage was taken pretty
literally. For example, the Council of Florence (1438-45) declared:
The holy Roman Church believes, professes, and preaches
that "no one remaining outside the Catholic Church, not just
pagans, but Jews or heretics or schismatics, can become
partakers of eternal life; but will go to the 'everlasting fire
which was prepared for the devil and his angels' (Matt. 25:41)
unless before the end of life they are joined to the
An enormous body of Catholic literature exists, mirroring the
pronouncement cited above; so large that the Modernists couldn't just
ignore it. But Vatican II adopted a truly ingenious way of changing
this doctrine -- it simply (!) redefined the Church:
This Church constituted and organized as a society in the
present world, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is
governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in
communion with him. (emphasis added) 
The difference between "subsists in the Catholic Church" and "is
the Catholic Church" is considerable. "Subsistence" is an accidental
relationship, possibly temporary; as if the Church of Christ might
subsist somewhere else in the future or the past. Indeed, the
terminology would allow the Church to "subsist" in various places,
It gets better. I won't bother with the obvious stuff about how
we share so much in common with the Orthodox and the Protestants:
To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants,
the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them
belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the
flesh, is the Christ"; "for the gifts and the call of God are
I spoke of the Jews as our _elder brothers in the faith._
These words were an expression both of the Council's teaching,
and a profound conviction on the part of the Church.
The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge
the Creator in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims;
these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with
us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the
Thus in Hinduism men contemplate the divine mystery and
express it through an unspent fruitfulness of myths and through
searching philosophical inquiry.... Buddhism in its multiple
forms acknowledges the radical insufficiency of this shifting
world. It teaches a path by which men, in a devout and
confident spirit, can either reach a state of absolute freedom
or attain supreme enlightenment by their own efforts or by
Why should anyone be a Catholic? Wouldn't it make more sense to
find the religion one finds easiest or otherwise most appealing?
Indeed, doesn't being a Catholic constitute a liability to salvation,
requiring the observance of all sorts of difficult rules not required
of our separated brethren?
In addition to the theological problems caused by this Religious
Indifference, there is a very practical one with regard to the
Moslems. Western Civilization has been under siege by Islam for over
a thousand years. Early on, they invaded Christian North Africa,
whence they proceeded up the Iberian Peninsula as far as Tours and
Poitiers in France before being beaten back in 711. They held Spain
and Portugal for hundreds of years, not being completely expelled
until 1492 after an eight-hundred year occupation. The Holy Lands
were conquered, liberated and conquered again in the Middle Ages. By
the 1500s Moslems had taken Turkey and represented a long term threat
to Austria and Hungary. The fight continues in 1995 in the Balkans.
The Church celebrates Western triumphs over Islam in its feasts
of Our Lady of the Rosary, Our Lady of Victories, and the Holy Name
of Mary. But today we are told, "the believers in Allah are
especially close to us," and we are asked to follow the example of a
fictional Poland, "a country of deeply rooted ecumenical
traditions." In reality, several hundred years ago, John
Sobieski, the Polish general who liberated Vienna from the Moslems,
said, "I came, I saw, and God conquered."
Ecumenism flows logically from Religious Indifferentism. For
the first nineteen hundred odd years the Church not only disdained
the theology of non-Catholics -- it absolutely refused to worship
with them. In fact, I should have said for the first three or four
thousand years, for the prohibition against worshipping with
outsiders is a Divine Commandment given us in the Old Testament.
"The gods of the Gentiles are devils." Under the Law of Moses
the penalty for enticing God's followers to honor a false god was
death. And if the temptation came from among the non-Jews of a
certain city, that entire city was to be "doomed"; all of its
inhabitants and their livestock were to be killed and the buildings
to be burned to the ground. When the Jews grew lenient in this
connection, God punished them severely.
In speaking of religious meetings with non-Catholics, Pope Pius
XI was as specific as is possible:
It is therefore clear that the Holy See can never take part
in their congresses, and it is not permitted at any price that
Catholics should join such enterprises or contribute to them;
if they did so they would be according to a false Christian
religion the authority which belongs to the One Church of
Yet, the pontificate of Pope John Paul II has been filled with
contradictions of this Natural Law prohibition of "hav[ing] strange
gods before Me." There are scores of examples.
None is so bad an example as the gathering he sponsored on
October 27, 1986 at Assisi. 130 representatives from every
conceivable religion on the face of the earth met in the town of
Saint Francis. The pictures are quite colorful; medicine men in
eagle feathers, half naked animists, Buddhists in saffron or orange,
the Dalai-Lama in a wine colored purple almost matching the
Archbishop of Canterbury.... But if you are a Catholic who believes
in the Real Presence of our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, one
picture will catch your eye and hold your attention more than any
other: The Dalai Lama at prayer before a statue of the Buddha --
perched on top of the tabernacle of a Catholic Church!
A return engagement is scheduled for Mount Sinai at the dawn of
the millennium -- if the Pope and the world both last that long.
For most of this letter I am going to assume that the Pope is
well intentioned; that he believes his innovations will benefit
mankind if not the Church. Given this assumption, this seems to be
the time to discuss the civil parallel to Ecumenism that is practiced
by the Vatican II popes in their urgency to bring about an earthly
paradise. Some call this "Globalism" or "One-Worldism"; others who
deem the Popes to be ill intentioned refer to it as the "New World
Traditionally, the Church recognizes the right of individuals to
band together and form nations. While It holds a monolithic notion
of one true doctrine and one correct morality for all the world, it
recognizes that the worldly affairs of people may differ from one
region of the globe to another. Political rule is best left to the
lowest organizational level possible, so that the rulers are
personally familiar with the conditions about which they are
legislating. Localized rule also gives people who don't like the way
things are done in one place the freedom to move somewhere else --
global rule implies a requirement for everyone to think alike.
At the end of the First World War, Pope Benedict XV put it this way:
The coming of a world state is longed for and confidently
expected by all the worst and most disordered elements.... The
state based on an absolute equality of men and a community of
possessions, would banish all national loyalties.... In it no
acknowledgement would be made of a father over his children --
or of God over human society.... If these ideas are put into
practice there will inevitably follow a reign of terror.
Yet in spite of this, several documents point to the Vatican II
popes as globalists. Gaudium et spes, the Vatican II document on
the Church in the modern world, is long winded but deserves a
reading. It points out a lot of things in the world that "ought to
be." Now, it is hard to argue with "ought-to-be"s. Everyone should
have a good standard of living, and education, and health insurance,
and safety from crime, and the benefits of music and art, and so on -
- very few would disagree. However,, a problem arises when, after
lots of well publicized discussion, no one has any real world
solutions for how the "ought-to-be"s might be made realities. More
and bigger government is usually the final answer, despite calls for
something called "subsidiarity." In this case, bigger government
means world government -- a very frightening prospect for any but
those in favor with that government. For those who disagree with its
policies, world government means nowhere to hide.
Among the global utopian socialist ideas of the postconciliar
church we find: International re-distribution of income, and a world
bank; the elimination of nationalism; the desirability of
an armed world-force to allow the disarmament of nations, and the
government control of privately owned weapons. The inability of
any but a world organization to protect the rights of each
In his 1964 speech to the United Nations, Pope Paul VI referred
to that body as the "last great hope for mankind." Not the Catholic
Church, or the Blessed Virgin, or Christ the King -- but the United
THE INVERSION OF MARRIAGE
Modern globalism requires not only the one world religion of
Assisi and an armed United Nations. Only those obedient to it may be
allowed to flourish. Of necessity, it must exclude any "program of
irresponsible population growth." The words just quoted come not
from Planned Parenthood, but are those of Pope John Paul II.
Before Vatican II the Church taught that the primary end of
marriage was the procreation and education of children. A division
of labor between husband and wife (sometimes called "mutual aid and
assistance") and the legitimate satisfaction of physical attraction
were taught to be secondary ends. Sometimes the secondary ends were
said to include "fidelity," "indissolubility," and the "sacramental
graces" conferred by the Sacrament of Matrimony itself. But the
primary end was always said to be "offspring," or "procreation," or
some similar expression.
Vatican II, however, gave a new and fuzzy definition:
Through this union they experience the meaning of their
oneness and attain to it with growing perfection day by
day. As a mutual gift of two persons, this intimate union as
well as the good of the children imposes total fidelity on the
spouses and argues for an unbreakable oneness between them.
Simultaneously with Vatican II, a committee organized by Pope
John XXIII and retained under Pope Paul VI, investigated the morality
of birth control. Never mind that birth control had been explicitly
condemned for centuries, for change was in the wind. If it did
nothing else, the committee convinced many Catholics and others that
the issue was open for debate; for the Pope himself had opened it!
After years of "investigation" Pope Paul VI issued his famous
encyclical Humanae vitae. To his credit, or perhaps because he
felt the time unripe for so momentous a change, Humanae vitae
continued to forbid birth control as a violation of the natural law.
(In practice, if he bothers to go to Confession, the contracepting
Catholic has no problem in finding a confessor who dismisses Humanae vitae as "medieval.")
But Humanae vitae was far away from presenting the authentic
magisterial teachings of the Church on marriage. The popular outcry
when Pope Paul VI "took away the promised birth control" completely
masked the more complete inversion of the ends of matrimony. Paul
took away some of the fuzziness of Vatican II, making the Modernist
teaching more explicit:
That teaching, often set forth by the magisterium, is
founded upon the inseparable connection, willed by God and
unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the
two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the
procreative meaning. . . . By safeguarding both these essential
aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal
act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and
its ordination towards man's most high calling to parenthood."
(emphasis added) 
Pope John Paul II's personal
Reflections on Humanae Vitae
state the same idea again, throwing in some existentialist jargon
about the "acting person" and "fundamental structures":
In this way, the "fundamental structure" (that is, the
nature) of the marriage act constitutes the necessary basis for
an adequate reading and discovery of the two significances that
must be carried over into the conscience and the decisions of
the acting parties, and also the necessary basis for
establishing these significances, that is, their inseparable
connection. Since "the marriage act..."- at the same time -
"unites husband and wife in closest intimacy" and, together,
"makes them capable of generating new life," and both the one
and the other happen "through the fundamental structure," then
it follows that the human person (with the necessity proper to
reason, logical necessity) "must" read at the same time the
"twofold significance of the marriage act" and also the
"inseparable connection between the unitive significance and
the procreative significance of the marriage act."
If there is any doubt left, we need only compare Pope John Paul II's
new Code of Canon Law with the old Code:
1917 Code of Canon Law 1983 Code of Canon Law
Canon 1013 #1. The Canon 1055 #1. The marriage
primary end of marriage is the covenant, by which a man and a
procreation and education of woman establish themselves a
children; its secondary end is partnership of their whole life,
mutual help and the allaying of and which of its own very nature
concupiscence. is ordered to the well-being of
the spouses and the procreation
#2. The essential and upbringing of children, has,
properties of marriage are between the baptized, been
unity and indissolubility, raised by Christ the Lord to the
which acquire a particular dignity of a sacrament.
firmness in Christian marriage (English Canon Law Society
by reason of its sacramental translation.)
Prior to Vatican II a couple might -- for grave reasons --
purposefully avoid the primary end of Marriage while making use of
the secondary ends. In other words they could practice "rhythm," or
"natural family planning" as it is known today. They were encouraged
to discuss this with their confessor to get an objective analysis of
the gravity of their reasons; they were cautioned not to cause
infidelity through their abstinence; and they were to do no more
than refrain from relations when conception was likely. Today there
seems to be the tacit assumption that all married Catholics practice
NFP, as though 20th century life itself constitutes a "grave reason."
My personal opinion is that this blanket use of NFP will instill
a contraceptive mentality in Catholics. If the primary end of
(Modernist) marriage is now unity of the couple, and it is considered
universally acceptable to suppress the now secondary end of begetting
children, than why not use a method that works reliably? After all,
an unforeseen "secondary end" might cause division between the
couple, thus impairing the primary end. At a minimum, the inversion
brings a selfishness incompatible with the generosity needed in
Christian marriage and life.
ABDICATION OF AUTHORITY
TO FALSE MYSTICISM
In 1959 there were no great new heresies with which to contend.
No doctrines needed to be more carefully defined. A question that
ought to be asked is "Why was a Ecumenical Council held at all?
John XXIII had an answer to that question when he announced his
intention to summon the Council:
When we were recollected in humble prayer, We heard in the
intimacy and simplicity of Our spirit a divine invitation for
the convocation of an Ecumenical Council.
and in his opening speech to the Council:
As regards the initiative for the great event which gathers
us here, it will suffice to repeat as historical documentation
Our personal account of the first sudden bringing up in our
heart and lips of the simple words "Ecumenical Council." We
uttered those words in the presence of the Sacred College of
Cardinals on that memorable January 25, 1959 .... It was
completely unexpected, like a flash of heavenly light, shedding
sweetness in eyes and hearts.
In other words, Pope John heard a "little voice." A voice that
directed him to undertake what has been demonstrably the most
disastrous course of action the Church has ever chosen to pursue.
Pope John chose to ignore what every seminary student used to learn
in his first course in Mystical Theology about "discernment of
spirits." That is, simply stated: That no one should ever seek
guidance through miraculous means; and that instructions that seem
to come from God through such means (apparitions, visions, locutions,
internal voices, etc.) are to be ignored until they can be
carefully investigated and determined to be of divine origin.
Otherwise, one might be following instructions from the devil, who
can make himself appear as an angel of light. And, of course, this
investigation and discernment must be conducted by a disinterested
party, someone whose personal pride and fortune will not be affected
by the outcome.
John's locution, "Ecumenical Council," was just the beginning of
a veritable torrent of questionable mystical phenomena. The Blessed
Virgin is now said to be appearing on every street corner, telling
the faithful what new exercise God wants in exchange for world peace,
and what we should do for salvation. The charismatic movement has
turned Catholics into Pentecostals who go about babbling in non-
linguistic noises, dabbling in faith healing like Oral Roberts, and
"slaying each other in the Spirit" (whatever that means). Quite
predictably, these phenomena have strengthened the pride of those who
are "in the know," and detracted from the authority of the Pope and
bishops who should be the ones telling the faithful what God wants us
to do for salvation.
This undermining of his own and the Church's authority seems to
be intentional on the part of the Pope. Shortly after Vatican II,
Pope Paul VI spoke openly about the "auto-demolition of the Church."
And then in 1983, Pope John Paul II issued his new Code of Canon Law, which eliminated all of the controls that the Church formerly
exercised over those claiming to have received a supernatural
communication. The apparitions at Medjugorje are representative: A
multi-million dollar industry publicizes the alleged apparition with
books, magazines, tapes, and tours in spite of generally negative
findings by the Bishop of Mostar. (Just imagine if there was no war
going on over there!)
Pope Paul VI, by the way, is reminiscent of the high priest
Caiphas, who prophesied because of his office and not because he was
a holy man. He had another phrase that I will mention here, but
which could fit in anywhere in this letter: "The smoke of Satan has
entered through a crack in the Church."
This letter has gone on at length, but this last item is
essential. For nineteen centuries the things connected with the
Church's Liturgy were held more sacred than any other human
possession. The Mass was the renewal of the one Sacrifice of the
Cross, accomplished by His ordained priest acting "in the Person of
Christ." From that Mass might be communicated or reserved in a
golden vessel the true Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, of Jesus
Christ; given to those fasting, and in the state of grace, and
wearing their "Sunday best." The Psalms chanted or recited for
several hours a week; said without fail by cloistered religious in
monasteries and convents, by busy priests in their churches or even
on subway trains, were the "work of God." There was a sense of the
sacred about Catholic churches and establishments -- perhaps a sense,
and a smell, and a taste, and a touch, and a sight -- all
unmistakably pointing to something holy. Today, that pointer is
missing, and perhaps the something holy is gone as well.
At the time of Vatican II there was a well developed "liturgical
movement" comprised of people wanting to return to a greater degree
of participation by the congregation in the Mass. The Vatican II
declaration on the Liturgy, Sacrosanctum concilium, appeared to be
a reasonable step in that direction. Attention was paid to
participation in the Mass, the Office, and the Gregorian Chant. The
less frequently heard parts of the Mass could be read in the
vernacular. Even such ideas as adapting the liturgy to the cultures
of mission countries did not seem particularly dangerous at that time
since no one could even conceive of a priest offering Mass in
anything but a holy way. Laymen were enlisted to read the epistle,
but that was actually less significant than using laymen as Mass
servers, which had been done for centuries. Offertory processions
were a novelty to most, as well as some altars that faced the
congregation, but not all that traumatic. The abominable
translations of the Epistles and Gospels caused some stir, but
everyone assumed that they would be corrected. In 1965 various parts
of the Mass were removed, and the "bidding prayers" inserted. In
my opinion this was the "beginning of the end," as it
institutionalized ad lib additions to the Mass (which were often
To my recollection, the first undeniable damage was done to the
Mass around 1967, when the Canon of the Mass was translated into
English and other vernacular languages. In sacred Scripture and in
every Catholic (and non-Catholic) rite, the words of consecration
indicate that the Precious Blood of Christ is "shed for [you and for]
many unto the forgiveness of sins." In every language
that I know anything about, except Greek, the words of consecration
were mis-translated with the identical, heretical phrase!
Instead of saying "for many," the phrase was rendered "for all men,"
"por todos," "fur alle," "per tutti," etc.
The Catechism of the
Council of Trent, some 400 years ago, specifically stated that
we do not use such words in the Consecration, for while Christ
did shed His Blood to redeem all mankind, not everyone's sins are
forgiven, and it is to forgiveness that our Lord referred at the Last
Supper. The idea that all men are forgiven of their sins, or are
otherwise saved is the heresy of "Universalism." It is
reasonable to suppose that someone who knowingly falsifies the
meaning of our Lord's words does not do what He does, and thus at
least fails to consecrate the wine and perhaps does not celebrate
Mass at all.
1969 brought the complete revision of the Mass known as the
Novus Ordo Missae, or New Order of Mass. Composed with the help of
six Protestant ministers, the Novus Ordo, and particularly its
vernacular versions, minimizes the concept of sin and forgiveness, or
that Mass is a sacrifice, or that there is a difference between the
priest and the people. There is a great body of literature about its
shortcomings, the best, in my opinion, being The Great Sacrilege
Father Wathen. A more "official" critique of the Novus
was issued by Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, the former head of the Holy
Office (today the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, headed
by Cardinal Ratzinger).
The Ottaviani Intervention points out that the New Mass may be
invalidly celebrated for another reason, beyond the mis-translations
of the essential parts. The new missal refers to the "Narrative of
the Institution" instead of the Consecration. Together with
St. Thomas, Ottaviani holds that the intention to narrate is not the
intention to consecrate. The term "narrative" appears to be
intentional as the error is reiterated in the New Catechism.
Gradual developments further reduced belief in the sacrificial
nature of the Mass and in the Real Presence. Communion in the hand,
lay distributors, altar girls, liturgical dancing, and so forth have
combined to strip Catholics of their belief in the Sacred Mysteries.
There are few vocations to the Sacred Priesthood because there is
nothing Sacred anymore. Man now worships existentialist man, and not
the Father of Heaven. Please note that I have cited only those
abuses actually sanctioned by the Pope -- there are a myriad of yet
crazier practices that go on with at least the tacit approval of
those in authority. And there are many more to come.
I have merely "scratched the surface" with my brief analysis of
what has gone wrong in the New Mass and in the New Church. You may
have noticed that the word "Latin" appears nowhere in these pages
apart from this single occurrence. While much could be said about
the loss of the traditional and universal language of the Church, I
will refrain from doing so in order to put the lie to the Modernist
contention that Traditionalists are upset about nothing more
significant than the nostalgia associated with the use of an ancient
"AN ENEMY HAS DONE THIS"
Traditional Catholics are often mocked for holding "the
conspiracy theory of history." Well, first of all, having one's many
thousand year old religion literally stolen ought to be enough to
excuse any form of paranoia.
But, more importantly, we are faced with the fact that the
world's formerly most conservative organization has been attempting
to destroy itself in a liberal frenzy for the past thirty years or
so. Any corporation suffering losses on the scale of the New Church
would have fired its directors long ago. There would have been a
frantic effort to discover and reverse the changes that so adversely
affected a previously prosperous enterprise. Instead we have the
spectacle of the Chairman proclaiming that nothing is wrong, that
everything is according to plan, and that all we need is a little bit
more V2 to lubricate the machinery -- and his directors standing
around, congratulating him and each other on their successful
Are they crazy? Or are they criminal? It doesn't matter very
much. So many of the things they demand of us are at odds with our
Catholic Faith that we are obligated to resist. We are not
only talking about crimes against individuals here, but also crimes
against God. We may choose to acquiesce to the thief who enters the
church to steal our wallets, but not when he demands that we hand
over the Blessed Sacrament as well.
Catholics should be intensely loyal to the Pope. But
loyalty can be misplaced. When my father gets drunk, it is wrong for
me to make believe he is sober; to let him beat my mother, or go for
a drive in the family car.
The excuses made for the Pope are amazing. They range all the
way from "Everything he does is wonderful" to "He isn't really the
Pope." "He is being held captive." "He has been drugged." "He has
been replaced by an imposter." "... replaced by a clone." "The real
pope is living in Quebec." "... in Majorca." I didn't make up any
of these, and I am sure I have overlooked a few. They are all a
waste of breath. When he urges us to violate God's law he must be
resisted, no matter who, or what, or where he is.
Almost equally useless is the effort to identify the "forces
behind all of this." The devil is the obvious culprit. Associated
with him, we are told, are: the Mafia, the CIA, the UN, the
Freemasons, the Jews, the bankers, the Trilateral Commission, the
CFR, the Communists, Janet Reno, Malachi Martin, George Bush, and the
ghost of Jacques DeMolay. Some of the speculation gets very
interesting, some of it is absurd, some of it may well be true. But
you and I are not going to do very much to hurt the powerbrokers of
But what we can do -- what, indeed, we must do -- is to continue
the practice of the Catholic Faith. In the final analysis it is up
to God to vanquish the devil, not to us. Our part is to pray, to
keep the Commandments, to do penance, to band together with others in
order to have churches and priests to keep the Mass and Sacraments
for ourselves and our children.
Your question to me was, "In order to keep the Faith, may we
separate ourselves from the Pope without fear of Judgment day?" Go
back over the list of things mentioned in this letter: Modernism,
existentialism, religious liberty and indifferentism, ecumenism and
globalism, a false theology of marriage, false mysticism and the
abdication of authority, the destruction of the Mass and the
Sacraments. At this point, I hope the answer is obvious: "He has
separated himself from us, and we may not follow him without fear of
Judgment day!" Nonetheless, let us be sure to pray for him, and for
his return to the Faith.
I hope that this letter didn't come acoss in too much of an
angry tone. It wasn't meant to, but it is hard to write about things
in which one believes passionately without sounding emotional. In
any event, please do keep me in your prayers, and know that you are
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Rev. Fr. Charles T. Brusca
8 December 1998
I've been meaning to add to this letter for some time now --
just a thing or two noticed since my original writing.
HETERODOXY & ORTHOPRAXIS
More than one person has told me that I must be mistaken in
evaluating the writings of the Holy Father. He seems, after all, to
be such a good and holy man in what he has to say in matters of piety
and morality. Several of his Holy Thursday letters urge a renewed
devotion to our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament and call on priests to
make efforts in spreading that devotion to all of their people. His
devotion to the Blessed Virgin seems exemplary. He is unyielding on
the immorality of abortion, or divorce, for example. How can we
accuse him of teaching a religion new and different from Catholicism?
The answer is that Pope John Paul's behavior is often
disconnected from his theology -- what he does in practice doesn't
always agree with what he teaches in theory. The Pope grew up in a
Catholic country in a time of persecution, probably the best training
ground for making the practice of the Faith an almost automatic way
of life. Opportunities for piety were no doubt precious, as they had
to be snatched behind the backs of the Nazis or the Communists.
Immorality was unthinkable, or at least un-discussable, something
even the sinner felt best keeping private. Even though as a
theoretician the Pope speaks about achieving perfection through human
activities or the liberty of the individual to act on his conscience,
his practical behavior is still in great measure directed by a
Christ-centered piety and traditional Christian discipline. His
influence is only beginning to be seen in those younger people who
were raised in societies where his theoretical principles, and not
traditional Christianity, have been translated into common practice.
UT UNUM SINT
Perhaps the most amazing document issued since Vatican II is
Pope John Paul II's encyclical Ut unum sint. Most of it is
fluff (Slavic authors are customarily paid by the pound), but its
important parts follow Pope Pius X's model of Modernist writing
mentioned above. There is a "truth paragraph" (#18) which speaks
of unchanging truth. There is a "confusion paragraph" (#28) that
could have been written by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin or Jean-Paul
Sartre, calling for "dialogue" with those not of the Faith -- "an
indispensable step along the path toward human self-realization,
the self-realization both of each individual and of every human
community." And finally, there comes a Modernist enumeration of the
doctrines which are now up for discussion:
1) the relationship between Sacred Scripture, as the highest
authority in matters of faith, and Sacred Tradition, as
indispensable to the interpretation of the Word of God;
2) the Eucharist, as the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of
Christ, an offering of praise to the Father, the sacrificial
memorial and Real Presence of Christ and the sanctifying
outpouring of the Holy Spirit; 3) Ordination as a Sacrament,
to the threefold ministry of the episcopate, presbyterate and
diaconate; 4) the Magisterium of the Church , entrusted to the
Pope and the Bishops in communion with him, understood as a
responsibility and an authority exercised in the name of Christ
for teaching and safeguarding the faith; 5) the Virgin Mary,
as Mother of God and Icon of the Church, the spiritual mother
who intercedes for Christ's disciples and all humanity."(#79)
In #95, the Pope calls for dialog about the nature of the Papacy
Dialogue is one of those buzz-words of Vatican II that sound
warm and fuzzy until they are reduced to their actual meanings. If
Catholics sit down to discuss the issues cited by the Pope, they will
have to admit one of the following: a) that they are willing to
contradict essential articles of the Faith, or b) that they are
disingenuously trying to filibuster their opponents until the latter
are worn out sufficiently to give up what they believe, or c) that
they just like to hear themselves talk.
ECCLESIA DEI AND "THE
For about 15 years after the introduction of the Novus
the most proscribed liturgy in Christendom was the Roman Mass. The
new mass might be offered with just about any "clever" variation, but
the 1,400 year old Roman Rite was almost universally prohibited to
priests holding a place on the Vatican's "organization chart." It
was okay to have masses with hot dog buns and coke, masses in clown
vestments, masses with dog's in the sanctuary, childrens' masses with
toys on the altar ... "just don't say that terrible old Mass."
Actually, this may have been God's way of preserving the Church,
since many Catholics who knew nothing of the theological mischief of
Vatican II bitterly resented the loss of their Mass. They formed
various resistance organizations to fight the Sacramental theft.
Much to the chagrin of the Modernists, these small organizations
continue to grow.
In the mid 1980s, Pope John Paul II, seeing the comparative
success of the Catholic Resistance, authorized his Novus Ordo
priests to use our Mass in order keep Catholics in his churches where
they could continue to be taught the errors of Vatican II. This
authorization, or indult, (often referred to as "the Indult") allowed
local bishops to permit occasional Masses under highly controlled
conditions. Some bishops required the signing of "loyalty oaths" to
the Novus ordo as a condition for obtaining an admission ticket to
Tuesday night Mass in small chapel in a bad neighborhood -- a few
were more liberal. Needless to say, the Indult made very little
impact on the resistance -- it was more of a joke -- the "Insult."
For most of the 80s, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the leader of
the largest of the resistance groups, was willing to "dialogue" with
the Holy See. Archbishop Lefebvre, himself a Vatican Council II
Father, remained optimistic that the Council could eventually "be
interpreted in the light of tradition," refrained from consecrating
bishops to continue his movement after he passed on, and negotiated
with the Vatican for recognition of his group. (This made him the
token "Traditionalist" that the press would trot out whenever they
needed to acknowledge the existence of Catholic dissatisfaction with
the New Order.) But the "dialogue" broke down, and in June of 1988,
Lefebvre consecrated four new bishops in defiance of Pope John Paul.
The Pope immediately responded by excommunicating all of the bishops
concerned, broadening the "Indult," and establishing a religious
order to entice Catholics to the "Indult Mass."
Today, ten years later, there are several "Indult" orders and a
variety of New Order parishes where the Mass is celebrated on a more
or less regular basis. Many faithful Catholics have been drawn to
these churches, while ignoring the fact that they are supporting the
New Order and subjecting themselves and their families to the errors
that must be taught by New Order priests. They delude themselves
into thinking that Mass in the Roman Rite will magically drive out
the errors of Vatican II. While many of these people and even some
"Indult" priests are in good faith, it is hard to hold all of them
My letter to Patricia was written during the pontificate of Pope John Paul
II, who passed away in early April of 2005, and was succeeded by his prefect for
the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now
known as Pope Benedict XVI. As a priest, Father Ratzinger was one of the
theological advisors to Vatican II, and continues to speak enthusiastically
about the Council to this day. But he has been talking about the churches of the
West which “appear to be dying” (AP: 28 July 2005).
With cautious hope we have asked him to address the disastrous situation in the
Church, brought about by what he referred to, just prior to his election, as “decades
... of a dictatorship of relativism.”
Rev. Fr. Charles T. Brusca
Boca Raton, Florida 33486
June 3, AD 2005
Most Sacred Heart of Jesus
His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI
City and State of the Vatican
I offer you, first of all, belated congratulations on your election as
The sermon that you delivered to the College of Cardinals two days before
your election is viewed as a sign of hope by many of us Catholics who are
unwilling to follow the path of modernism which has gripped the Church in the
past thirty or forty years. Many of us had all but lost hope that the crisis
would be recognized by a Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church; let alone by one
about to become Pope:
How many winds of doctrine we have known in recent decades, how many
ideological currents, how many ways of thinking… The small boat of thought of
many Christians has often been tossed about by these waves - thrown from one
extreme to the other: from Marxism to liberalism, even to libertinism; from
collectivism to radical individualism; from atheism to a vague religious
mysticism; from agnosticism to syncretism, and so forth. Every day new sects are
created and what Saint Paul says about human trickery comes true, with cunning
which tries to draw those into error (cf Eph 4, 14). Having a clear faith, based
on the Creed of the Church, is often labeled today as a fundamentalism. Whereas,
relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and “swept along by every wind
of teaching”, looks like the only attitude (acceptable) to today’s
standards. We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism which does not
recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own
ego and one’s own desires.
To be frank, in the past you have not appeared to be a champion of the
certainty of the Catholic Faith over the relativistic philosophies which have
flourished in those decades, but many of us have expressed the hope that the
graces of the Supreme Pontificate will make you such a champion in much the same
way that Saint Thomas Becket became a champion of the Church in England when he
became Archbishop of that nation’s primatial see. History will look back at
how Pope Benedict XVI handled several essential issues to see if, indeed, he was
a champion of Becket’s stature:
1. The restoration of Catholic philosophy. One cannot be a true Catholic
while clinging to relativistic or existentialist ways of thinking. Catholic
thinking depends not at all on dialogue, opinion or consensus reached by
men. Catholic dogma is based on what God knows to be true about Himself and His
holy things; Catholic morality is based on how God wants us to behave toward Him
and toward His creatures; Catholic worship is based on how God has decreed that
we will worship Him. Anything less is not Catholic and not godly.
2. The elimination of Sacramental invalidity. Catholics have a right to the
Sacraments as they were instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ. The decades of
relativism saw the introduction of dubious or positively invalid Sacramental
matter and forms. On the “official” level one thinks immediately of the
mistranslation of the Consecration of the Mass, or the confused rubrics which
suggest that the consecrating priest acts as a narrator rather than in the
person of Christ, or the acceptance of the Assyrian rite which has no form of
consecration at all, or the new (1968) form for the consecration/ordination of
bishops which does not refer to the fullness of the priesthood. On the “unofficial”
level we have the scandal of clearly invalid matter-cookies and cakes-replacing
valid altar breads, or priests replacing the form of Baptism with trendy names
for the three Divine Persons, or, just recently, of a priest baptizing babies by
dunking their buttocks in the baptismal bowl. God has the right to be worshipped
in reverence, and Catholics have a right to the highest possible degree of
certainty that their Sacramental acts are undeniably valid and in no way
3. The elimination of clerical sodomy. The scandal of priests and bishops
victimizing the faithful in such an unspeakable way has shaken the confidence of
all decent people. But what is of greater concern, if that is possible, is the
recognition that action has been taken against such men only when they have been
exposed as violators of the civil law; as child molesters, embezzlers,
exhibitionists, and so forth. Certainly, we are all sinners subject to falling
from grace, but men who live and plan to live in the long term practice of moral
depravity-and those who facilitate their plans-have no business in the sacred
priesthood or episcopate. It helps not at all when the facilitators are rewarded
with prime positions in Rome.
4. The elimination of false ecclesiology and ecumenism. While only God can
judge the subjective dispositions of men’s hearts, there is an objective
requirement for Baptism, belief in God’s revelation, and membership in the one
Church which He founded. Other religions may have some of the truths of the
Faith, but all are lacking in some essentials, making them, objectively, roads
to perdition. There is always room for cordiality and for civic cooperation, but
the encouragement of (or cooperation in) false worship, morality, or teaching is
You Holiness, you are remembered vocally each day in the Canon of my Mass,
with the intention that you will one day be remembered as another Saint Thomas
of Canterbury. May God grant you many years to enjoy the fruits of the
restoration of the Catholic Faith, which I implore you to bring about early in
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Rev. Fr. Charles T. Brusca
NOTES (Letter to Pope Benedict XVI):
i Radio Vatican, Homily of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, 18 April AD 2005
NOTES (Original Letter to Patricia):
1. Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici
greges, 8 September 1907,#18.
2. The Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX is found in Dogmatic Canons and Decrees
(Rockford, IL: TAN Books & Publishers, 1977)
3. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici gregis and
Lamentabili sane make up
a single pamphlet (Boston: Daughters of St. Paul, undated).
4. Jesuit Fathers of St. Marys,
The Church Teaches (Rockford: TAN,
1973) nos. 88-90. Hereinafter cited as TCT.
5. Walter Abbott, SJ., The Documents of Vatican
II (NY: Guild
Press, 1967). Various editions of the V2 documents are in print.
6. Dignitatis humanae #2. Paragraph numbers follow Abbott, op.
cit., and presumably follow the Council numbering scheme.
7. Psalm 2.
8. Pope Pius XI, Quas primas, December 11, 1925.
9. Abbe Daniel Le Roux, ibid., 23-27
10. TCT, no. 165 (Council of Florence, decree for the Jacobites).
11. Lumen gentium #8.2.
12. The alleged Catechism of the Catholic
Hereinafter referred to as CCC.
13. H.H. John Paul II,
Crossing the Threshold of Hope (NY: Knopf,
1994) p. 99. Hereinafter referred to as CTTOH.
14. Lumen gentium #16.
15. Nostra aetate #2.
16. CTTOH, pp. 91 & 145.
17. Psalm 45:5. Vulgate version, before ecumenical "surgery" in
18. Deuteronomy 13.
19. Psalm 105: 34-48.
20. Pope Pius XI, Mortalium animos, #9.
21. Pope Benedict XV, 25 July 1920.
22. Pope Paul VI; Populorum progressio #49, #51.
23. Populorum progressio #62.
24. CCC #1308, #1316.
25. Pope John XXIII, Pacem in terris #137, #145
26. CTTOH, p. 28.
27. The Council of Florence, 1438-45, included fidelity and
indissolubility (TCT #854); Saint Augustine included fidelity and
the sacramental grace (De bono conjugali, c. 24, n. 32; cited in
Pius XI, Casti conubii #10).
28. Note the existentialist notion that man achieves "perfection"
through his human activities; sexuality in this case. Pope John
Paul II in his encyclical Veritatis splendor #51, says this even
more clearly in a section based on a falsified quote from St. Thomas
Aquinas. Paradoxically the title of the encyclical means "the
splendor of truth"!
29. Gaudium et spes #48
30. Humanae vitae, 12)
31. Pope John Paul II, Reflections on Humanae
vitae, (1984) #6.
32. John XXIII, Humanae salutis, 25 January 1959.
33. Instruction, Sacred Congregation of Rites, 26 September 1964.
34. Matthew 26, Mark 14. Luke 22 says only "for you."
no account. 1 Corinthians 11 does not say.
35. Catechism of the Council of Trent for Parish
Part II, Chapter IV, Section 24.
36. Hans Urs von Balthasar, a proponent of Universalism was named
Cardinal by Pope John Paul II but was struck dead the night before
receiving the Red Hat. There are overtones of it in the CCC, #1058
for example; and in CTTOH, 186-7, where it is suggested that Hell
is real but maybe Purgatory is adequate and nobody actually goes to
37. James F. Wathen, OSJ, The Great
Sacrilege (Rockford: TAN Books
and Publishers, 1971).
38. Alfredo Card. Ottaviani, Antonio Card. Bacci, and a Group of
Roman Theologians, The Ottaviani Intervention (Rockford: TAN Books
and Publishers, 1971).
39. Ottaviani, ibid., page 44 and note 29 in the TAN edition; St.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica III, Q. 78, A. 5.
40. CCC #1353. (
41. Encyclical Letter of Pope John Paul II,
Ut unum sint, 25 May
42. Pope John Paul II, motu propio
"Ecclesia Dei," 2 July 1988, #6.