The Great Apostasy, not the Great Façade

A critique of the book The Great Façade and a commentary on the Vatican II apostasy

- by Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B. -

Introduction

In the summer of 2002, the American Bishops in union with Antipope John Paul II issued a statement which declared that Jews should not be converted to Jesus Christ.  In 1999, the Vatican and Antipope John Paul II agreed with the Lutherans that man is justified by faith alone and that the Council of Trent does not apply.  Over the past 25 years, the Vatican, Antipope John Paul II and his bishops have repeatedly declared that the Eastern “Orthodox” (i.e., the Eastern Schismatics) should not be converted to the Catholic Church.  The same bishops consistently teach that the Church of Jesus Christ is not the same thing as the Catholic Church; and every bishop in union with Antipope John Paul II denies the dogma outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation.  The head of this Vatican II “Church” – the head of this Body of Apostasy – prays with the Jews for the coming of the Messiah, praises Martin Luther as a great spiritual leader and implores St. John the Baptist to protect Islam (a non-Christian religion).

To those of good will the meaning of all of this is easy to see: blatant apostasy, a new religion, an utter denial of the Gospel, unabashed and notorious heresy, a denial of the entire Catholic Faith.  To others, however, it isn’t even heresy at all.  It is just a “façade,” just a verbal “virus” of “novelties,” none of which involves the formal denial of an article of divine and Catholic faith and none of which makes those who hold and defend these things heretics.

And with that I come to the book I am about to discuss.  In 2002, a book was published entitled The Great Façade by Thomas Woods and Christopher Ferrara.  The book has been called by its supporters “the Swiss Army Knife of Roman Catholic Traditionalism.”  It has been lauded to no end by popular “traditional” journals and publications, and it has influenced the way in which many people view and react to the Vatican II apostasy and Antipope John Paul II.

In this article, I will critique the false resistance which this book defends and the heretical ideas which it promotes, a false resistance and heretical ideas that have been adopted, supported and promulgated by publications such as The Remnant, Catholic Family News and those who think as they do.

The Great Façade

The Great Façade is a 400 plus page book detailing what it calls “Vatican II and the Regime of Novelty in the Roman Catholic Church.”  In other words, the book discusses in great detail some of the things that I described in the opening paragraph of this article, things which concern the apostasy of Antipope John Paul II and the Vatican II Church.  But, as we will show, The Great Façade doesn’t label this defection from the faith by Antipope John Paul II and his bishops as apostasy or even as heresy, even though their book provides overwhelming proof that neither Antipope John Paul II nor his bishops are remotely Catholic, but are total apostates from the faith.

The Outrageous Teaching on the Jews

Before I begin to discuss the particulars of The Great Façade, I must make an important point.  As Catholics know, the heart of the Gospel involves the necessity of belief in Jesus Christ, the Son of God.  This is the foundation of Christianity (along with the dogma of the Trinity), and is the subject of much of the four Gospels, especially St. John’s Gospel.  Here are just a few passages from St. John’s Gospel concerning this primary dogma of the Catholic religion, the necessity of belief in Jesus Christ for salvation.

John 3:18: “… he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”

John 3:36: “He that believeth in the Son hath life everlasting: but he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.”

John 8:23-24: “And he said to them [the Jews]: You are from beneath, I am from above.  You are of this world, I am not of this world.  Therefore, I said to you, that you shall die in your sins: for if you believe not that I am He, you shall die in your sin.”

John 10:1, 9: “Amen, Amen, I say to you: he that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up another way, the same is a thief and a robber… I am the door.”

John 14:6: “Jesus saith to them: I am the way, and the truth, and the life.  No man cometh to the Father, but by me.”

John 15:6: “If anyone abideth not in me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up, and cast him into the fire, and he burneth.”

John 15:8-9: “And when he [the Paraclete] is come, he will convince the world of sin, and of justice, and of judgment.  Of sin indeed: because they have not believed in me.”

John 18:37: “For this was I born, and for this came I into the world, that I should give testimony to the truth: every one who is of the truth, heareth my voice.”

This dogma is, of course, reiterated by countless statements from Popes and councils and 2000 years of Catholic Tradition.  To say that one who wishes to be saved can be saved without believing in Jesus Christ is heresy of the worst kind.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Sixthly, we offer to the envoys that compendious rule of the faith composed by most blessed Athanasius, which is as follows: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity... Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity.      “But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ... the Son of God is God and man...– This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”

So, with that essential truth of the Catholic faith reiterated, I return to the book by Thomas Woods and Christopher Ferrara: The Great Façade.  A significant portion of their book discusses this issue – the necessity of belief in Jesus Christ for salvation – vis-à-vis the position of the Vatican II Church and Antipope John Paul II on this topic.

It is a fact that Antipope John Paul II has declared that the Old Covenant is still valid for the Jews (and therefore that they can be saved without believing in Christ).

Antipope John Paul II, Address to Jews in West Germany, Nov. 17. 1980: “The first dimension of this dialogue, that is, the meeting between the people of the Old Covenant, never revoked by God, and that of the New Covenant, is at the same time within our Church…”

This heresy is reiterated in Antipope John Paul II’s New Catechism, a catechism which Antipope John Paul II promulgated by his “apostolic authority,” which is to say that if Antipope John Paul II were the valid Pope, his new Catechism (and the following heresy on the Old Covenant) were promulgated from the Chair of Peter.

Antipope John Paul II, New Catechism of the Catholic Church, # 121:“… for the Old Covenant has never been revoked…”

Antipope John Paul II has, furthermore, confirmed his heresy on the Jews by his deeds on many occasions.  He has been to the Jewish Synagogue where he prayed with them for the coming of the Messiah.  Most recently, on Feb. 13, 2003, Antipope John Paul II met with the new chief Rabbi of Rome, and congratulated him for his office!

Antipope John Paul II, Address to Chief Rabbi in Rome, Feb. 13, 2003: “Esteemed Chief Rabbi of Rome, Dear Brothers in the faith of Abraham, I am glad to meet you, esteemed Dr. Riccardo Di Segni, after your election as Chief Rabbi of Rome, and I cordially greet you and the representatives who have accompanied you.  I renew my congratulations to you for the important office which has been entrusted to you, and on this important occasion, I would like to recall with deep esteem your illustrious predecessor, Prof. Elio Toaff.” (L’Osservatore Romano, Feb. 19, 2003 issue, p. 6.)

To congratulate the Christ-denying Rabbi for his ascension to the Office of Chief Rabbi involves denying the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation; 2) denying the necessity of believing in Jesus Christ for salvation; and 3) denying the dogma that the Old Covenant has been revoked and cannot be observed without sin.

In The Great Facade, Thomas Woods and Christopher Ferrara show how “Cardinal” Walter Kasper, following Antipope John Paul II’s example and speaking as head of the Vatican Commission on relations with the Jews, has also stated that the Jews’ covenant with God is still valid, and thus the Jews have no need for conversion to Christ in order to be saved.

Cardinal Walter Kasper, quoted in The Great Façade, p. 46: “… the old theory of substitution [that is, the theory of the New Covenant substituting for the Old] is gone since the Second Vatican Council… Therefore, the Church believes that Judaism, i.e., the faithful response of the Jewish people to God’s irrevocable covenant, is salvific for them, because God is faithful to his promises.”

Thomas Woods and Christopher Ferrara, The Great Façade, p. 203: “In fact, Cardinal Kasper… has repudiated the conversion of the Jews as explicitly as he has repudiated the return of Protestant dissidents to the one true Church…[Kasper says]: ’Judaism… is salvific for them, because God is faithful to his promises… Thus mission, in this strict sense, cannot be used with regard to the Jews, who believe in the true and one God.  Therefore… there does not exist any Catholic missionary organization for the Jews…”

The facts contained in The Great Façade further demonstrate that the apostate Walter Kasper is merely enunciating the common belief of the Vatican II bishops.  As stated already, in 2002 the American Bishops released a document on the Jews which bluntly asserted that “campaigns that target Jews for conversion to Christianity are no longer theologically acceptable in the Catholic Church” because the Jews’ covenant with God is still valid and salvific for them.  And this document of the American Bishops cited Antipope John Paul II to confirm its teaching.  The authors of The Great Facade also show how “Cardinal” Francis George, the “Archbishop” of Chicago (who is actually considered a conservative among the Novus Ordo Bishops) holds the same thing:

Thomas Woods and Christopher Ferrara, The Great Façade, p. 206: “Thus Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, admired as a conservative by neo-Catholics, could write in his diocesan newspaper that ‘the Church has also sinned against the Jewish people, first of all, in teaching that God’s covenant with Israel is no longer valid for them…’”

The Great Façade also points out that the Vatican has actually released a document on the Jews which teaches that the Jews’ wait for the Messiah is still valid!

Thomas Woods and Christopher Ferrara, The Great Façade, pp. 206-207: “In late 2001, the Pontifical Biblical Commission released a book entitled The Jewish People and the Holy Scriptures in the Christian Bible that confirmed the radical (but non-Magisterial) drift of Rome’s position vis-à-vis the Jews.  The book argues that the Jews’ continued wait for the Messiah is validated and justified by the Old Testament.  ‘The expectancy of the Messiah was justified in the Old Testament,’ papal spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls explained, ‘and if the Old Testament keeps its value, then it keeps that as a value, too.  It says you cannot just say all the Jews are wrong and we are right.’  Asked by reporters whether his statements might be taken to suggest that the Messiah may not in fact have come, Navarro-Valls replied, ‘It means it would be wrong for a Catholic to wait for the Messiah, but not for a Jew.’  The latest position of the Vatican apparatus (not to be confused with the Church’s constant Magisterium) is, in essence, that the Jews are perfectly entitled to live as if Christ had never come.”

So, to summarize, even the authors of The Great Façade, Thomas Woods and Christopher Ferrara, are forced to admit that the present position of the Vatican is that “the Jews are perfectly entitled to live as if Christ had never come.”  Is the Vatican’s position heresy?  Of course it is heresy!  Any Catholic knows that it is a denial of the entire Gospel; it is UTTER APOSTASY!  To say it is not heresy is heresy, as proven by the scriptural and dogmatic passages already cited.  But what do Woods and Ferrara say about the Vatican’s position that “the Jews are perfectly entitled to live as if Christ had never come”?  What do they say about the Vatican’s abominable denial of the core message of the Christian faith and the Gospel (that all who wish to be saved [including the Jews] must believe in Christ for salvation)?  Do the authors of The Great Façade think that this is heresy?  Unbelievably, the authors of the The Great Façade say no!  On page 57 of their book, the authors comment on a series of post-Vatican II novelties which they documented on pages 42-57, one of which was Kasper’s teaching that the Old Covenant is valid and salvific for the Jews (quoted already).  And here is what they say about these novelties, including Kasper’s abominable and heretical statement on the Jews which is quoted on page 46 of their book!

Thomas Woods and Christopher Ferrara, The Great Façade, p. 57: “Now, for someone who is willing to overlook crucial distinctions and leap to unwarranted conclusions about the present crisis, it would be easy to say, with the sedevacantists, that all of these novelties and apparent contradictions of past teaching are ‘heresy,’… But a careful examination of these novelties and apparent contradictions, one by one, shows that none of them involves the formal denial of an article of divine and Catholic faith… Not even John Paul II’s recent statement ‘May St. John the Baptist protect Islam’ is heresy, properly speaking, since the Pope’s public expression of a wish that a false religion receive divine protection, while certainly scandalous and even stupefying, does not translate into a direct denial of any article of divine and Catholic faith.”

This is outrageous, utterly heretical and actually blasphemous.  The authors of The Great Façade are telling us that it is not heresy or a formal denial of an article of divine and Catholic faith to assert that: 1) the Old Covenant is still valid and 2) Jews can be saved without believing in Christ – as if these ideas were not repudiations of articles of faith!  This is complete nonsense.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino,1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives...”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic Law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to divine worship at that time, after our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally.  Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation.  All, therefore, who after that time (the promulgation of the Gospel) observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors.”

One can easily see that Kasper’s “novelty” (which is also held by Antipope John Paul II and the Vatican) is a formal denial of the above articles of divine and Catholic faith, exactly the opposite of what Ferrara and Woods say.  In fact, it is a formal denial of three articles of divine and Catholic faith, not to mention the entire Gospel, as shown already.  It is a denial of the solemnly defined dogma that 1) the Old Covenant is no longer valid (Pope Eugene IV, ex cathedra); 2) whoever wishes to be saved must believe in the Incarnation for salvation (Athanasian Creed, ex cathedra); and 3) Jews cannot be saved without entering the Catholic Church (Pope Eugene IV, “Cantate Domino,” ex cathedra).

Thus, one can see how the position advanced by The Great Façade, which is being lauded and promoted by so-called “traditional Catholic” publications, such as The Remnant and Catholic Family News, is a terrible denial of the faith and is actually heretical.  The position advanced by the authors of The Great Façade (and promoted by Catholic Family News and The Remnant) is actually an abomination; for it asserts that to deny the necessity of Jesus Christ for salvation is not to formally deny any article of the faith!

Just imagine if the authors of The Great Façade were in a debate with a fundamentalist Protestant and the Protestant said to them,

“Your bishops and the Vatican don’t even believe that the Jews should believe in Jesus.  They aren’t even Christians.  Your bishops whom you follow and with whom you are in communion (and whom you call ‘Your Excellency’ ) are not even Christian.”

And just imagine the authors of The Great Façade responding,

“Yes, it is true that the Catholic Bishops believe that Jews don’t need to believe in Jesus, but the bishops haven’t formally rejected the faith.”

The Protestant would laugh right in their faces and say, “then your false faith is truly not Christian, as it doesn’t even require you to believe that Jesus is necessary for salvation!  You Catholics are truly Christ-deniers, just as I believed all along.”

Or what is perhaps more illustrative of the significance of this issue, imagine someone before the Judgment Seat of Jesus Christ and trying to explain to Him:

“Lord, the Vatican said that Jews did not need to believe in You and I told everyone that the Vatican wasn’t repudiating the Faith.”

Perhaps only with this in mind can some people see that the assertion of the authors of The Great Façade – that it is not a formal repudiation of any article of divine and Catholic faith to hold that Jews don’t need to believe in Jesus Christ for salvation – is actually an abomination.  It is heresy and it is a blasphemy against Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Savior of all men (including the Jews), the author and finisher of our faith.

The Outrageous Teaching on the Schismatics

On page 45 of The Great Façade, the authors detail how the Vatican has also stated that conversion of the Eastern Schismatics (who reject the Papacy) is “outdated ecclesiology.”  This means that the Vatican has stated that it is an “outdated” idea to try to convert non-Catholics.  Our video Why Antipope John Paul II Cannot Be the Pope proves this point in greater detail, quoting from numerous speeches made by Antipope John Paul II himself, wherein he repeatedly states that unity with the schismatics is not achieved by converting them.  In his outrageous Directory for the Application of the Principles and Norms of Ecumenism (#125), Antipope John Paul II encourages interfaith worship with these Eastern Schismatics and states that “any suggestion of proselytism [trying to convert them] should be avoided.”

So it is a fact (proven below) that Antipope John Paul II and his false Church reject the dogma of the Catholic faith: that Christian unity with the Schismatics is only achieved by their conversion to Catholicism.

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (#10), Jan. 6, 1928: “… the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it.”

Antipope John Paul II, Homily, Jan. 25, 1993: “The way to achieve Christian unity, in fact,’ says the document of the Pontifical Commission for Russia, ‘IS NOT PROSELYTISM [trying to convert them] but fraternal dialogue...”

It is therefore a fact that Antipope John Paul II teaches that the faith of Rome (the Catholic faith) is not to be held by non-Catholics (thereby formally repudiating the necessity of belief in the Papacy for salvation and the necessity of the Catholic faith for salvation); therefore, he cannot be looked upon as holding the true Catholic Faith.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 13), June 29, 1896: “You are not to be looked upon as holding the true Catholic faith if you do not teach that the faith of Rome is to be held.”

Those who assert, in the face of these facts, that Antipope John Paul II is to be looked upon as holding the true Catholic faith (in other words, that he is their Catholic Pope) are denying this teaching of the Catholic Church and they are asserting that one can be a Catholic while rejecting the necessity of belief in the Papacy (a solemnly defined dogma).

In fact, in his encyclical on Sts. Cyril and Methodius (#27), Antipope John Paul II again indicated that Eastern Schismatics should not be converted to the Catholic Church.  He stated that unity with the Schismatics ‘is neither absorption nor fusion,’ which means not by conversion.  This section of his encyclical was even referenced by the Vatican’s Balamand Statement with the Eastern Schismatics to prove that the Schismatics do not need to be converted!

Additionally, on October 12, 2002, Antipope John Paul II and the Schismatic Patriarch of Romania jointly denounced trying to convert each other.  They stated: “Our aim and our ardent desire is full communion, which is not absorption…”  In his address on the same day, Antipope John Paul II told the schismatic Patriarch: “The goal is… to reach a unity which implies neither absorption nor fusion…”  Need I say more?  In the same address to the Schismatic Patriarch of Romania, Antipope John Paul II made this incredible statement:

“For her part, the Catholic Church recognizes the mission which the Orthodox Churches are called to carry out in the countries where they have been rooted for centuries.  She desires nothing else than to help this mission…”

But what do Woods and Ferrara have to say about this incredible heresy of Antipope John Paul II and the Vatican II Church?  They discuss the issue on page 45 of their book.

Thomas Woods and Christopher Ferrara, The Great Façade, p. 45: “The preconciliar Popes taught that the schismatic Orthodox must return to the Catholic Church, but the Balamand Statement, whose teaching is commended by the Pope in Ut Unum Sint 60, states that thanks to ‘radically altered perspectives and thus attitudes’ engendered by Vatican II, the Catholic Church will train new priests ‘to pave the way for future relations between the two Churches, passing beyond the outdated ecclesiology of return to the Catholic Church.’”

So here Ferrara and Woods provide further proof for what I stated above: that according to Antipope John Paul II and the Vatican’s Balamand Statement, the Catholic faith is completely meaningless: those heretics and schismatics (such as the Orthodox) who reject the Papacy and the last 13 universal Councils of the Catholic Church should not be converted to the Catholic faith; for this is an “outdated” and abandoned idea.  “Archbishop” Tadeusz Kondrusiewicz, John Paul II’s Apostolic Administrator for Russia, summed up the position of the Vatican II Church on this point quite well.

“The Second Vatican Council has declared that the Orthodox Church is our Sister Church and has the same means for salvation.  So there is no reason to have a policy of proselytism.” (quoted in The Devil’s Final Battle, pp. 91-92)

So, what do Woods and Ferrara conclude about this abominable heresy, which bluntly denies the necessity of the Papacy and the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation?  We quoted their words already on this point, but we will quote them again.

Thomas Woods and Christopher Ferrara, The Great Façade, p. 57: “But a careful examination of these novelties and apparent contradictions, one by one, shows that none of them involves the formal denial of an article of divine and Catholic faith… Not even John Paul II’s recent statement ‘May St. John the Baptist protect Islam’ is heresy…”

This again is outrageous and heretical.  According to the authors of The Great Façade, to hold that we should not try to convert the Eastern Schismatics (and therefore to deny the necessity of believing in the Papacy for salvation and the necessity of the Catholic faith for salvation) is not a formal denial of any article of divine and Catholic faith!  And this book is lauded by those who think that they are resisting the apostasy?

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 13), June 29, 1896: “You are not to be looked upon as holding the true Catholic faith if you do not teach that the faith of Rome is to be held.”

The authors and supporters of The Great Façade need to meditate on this teaching of the Catholic Church, for they are telling us just the opposite.  They are telling us that: You (the Vatican II bishops and Antipope John Paul II) are to be looked upon as holding the Catholic faith (you have not formally repudiated any article of it) even though you teach that the faith of Rome is not to be held.

It is also interesting to consider what Pope Pius IX declared about the “Old Catholics,” a heretical sect that believes in all the teachings of the Catholic Church except the First Vatican Council and its definition of Papal Infallibility.

Pope Pius IX, Graves ac diuturnae (#'s 1-4), March 23, 1875: "… the new heretics who call themselves 'Old Catholics'... these schismatics and heretics... their wicked sect... these sons of darkness... their wicked faction… this deplorable sect… This sect overthrows the foundations of the Catholic religion, shamelessly rejects the dogmatic definitions of the Ecumenical Vatican Council, and devotes itself to the ruin of souls in so many ways.  We have decreed and declared in Our letter of 21 November 1873 that those unfortunate men who belong to, adhere to, and support that sect should be considered as schismatics and separated from communion with the Church."

Pope Pius IX solemnly declared that Catholics must regard those as schismatics and separated from the Church who belong to, adhere to and support the sect of the “Old Catholics.”  And he says this despite the fact that he also says this:

Pope Pius IX, Graves ac diuturnae (# 2): “They [the ‘Old Catholics’] repeatedly state openly that they do not in the least reject the Catholic Church and its visible head but rather that they are zealous for the purity of Catholic doctrine…  But in fact they refuse to acknowledge all the divine prerogatives of the vicar of Christ on earth and do not submit to His supreme Magisterium.”

This proves that we must consider as schismatics and heretics individuals who reject Catholic dogma, even though those individuals claim to be Catholic and have not been specifically excommunicated by name.  And this of course applies precisely to Antipope John Paul II and his bishops.  But by making the assertions that they do, the authors of The Great Façade deny the dogmas of the necessity of the Papacy and outside the Church there is no salvation; for the authors are indicating that Antipope John Paul II and his bishops can deny these dogmas without teaching heresy, thereby negating (in reality) that outside the Church there is no salvation and the Papacy are dogmas that cannot be denied under pain of heresy.  It is equivalent to indicating that those who belong to, adhere to and support the sect of the “Old Catholics” are not to be considered as schismatics, but Catholics.

Thomas Woods and Christopher Ferrara, The Great Façade, p. 41: “As already noted, there can be no heresy without the obstinate denial of some article of divine and Catholic faith, and this cannot be found in any of the pronouncements of the conciliar Popes…”

This proves what I stated above.  I would like to close this section on Antipope John Paul II and the Vatican II sect’s outrageous teaching on the schismatics with some additional Catholic Magisterial teaching on the subject of converting the Eastern Schismatics to the Catholic faith.

Pope Benedict XIV, Allatae Sunt, July 26, 1755: “First, the missionary who is attempting with God’s help to bring back Greek and eastern schismatics to unity should devote all his effort to the single-objective of delivering them from doctrines at variance with the Catholic faith.”

Pope Benedict XIV, Allatae Sunt, July 26, 1755: “For the only work entrusted to the missionary is that of recalling the Oriental to the Catholic faith…”

The Outrageous Teaching on the Church of Christ

In their chapter on the Vatican document Dominus Iesus (the chapter is called “An Ambiguous Answer to Heresy”), the authors of The Great Facade provide overwhelming proof that the Vatican holds that the Church of Christ is larger than the Catholic Church.  The quotation from Cardinal Ratzinger – the chief theologian in the Vatican II Church! – suffices to establish the point:

Cardinal Ratzinger, quoted in The Great Façade, p. 356: “Thus the Council Fathers meant to say that the being of the Church as such is a broader entity than the Roman Catholic Church.”

So, do the authors of The Great Façade think that it is heresy to say that the Church of Christ is a larger entity than the Roman Catholic Church?

Thomas Woods and Christopher Ferrara, The Great Façade, p. 240: “While the vast conciliar and postconciliar program of innovation tends materially to oppose the perennial teaching of the Church in a number of areas, it does not involve any formal contradiction of an article of divine and Catholic faith.”

Thomas Woods and Christopher Ferrara, The Great Façade, p. 42: “But none of these apparent contradictions involves the formal repudiation of any article of divine and Catholic faith, even if it can be shown that the new teachings tend materially to oppose Catholic tradition.”

Thomas Woods and Christopher Ferrara, The Great Façade, p. 216: “We can anticipate the objection that these novelties do not, in themselves, amount to a formal contradiction of prior dogmatic teaching, which is certainly true…”

This is an abomination!

The “Neo-Catholic”

Besides what has been mentioned already, much of The Great Façade discusses what is called the “Neo-Catholic.”  From my reading of the book, the authors describe the “Neo-Catholic” as one who accepts or defends the “novelties” of the Vatican II sect, such as those incredible heresies discussed already.

Thomas Woods and Christopher Ferrara, The Great Façade, p. 250: “… what we call neo-Catholicism is essentially a defense of novelty…”

In addition, the “Neo-Catholic” is one who accepts or defends false ecumenism (i.e., the Vatican II sect’s practice of praying with and respecting non-Christian religions of Satan).  The “Neo-Catholic” is one who basically accepts, defends or attempts to justify, in one way or another, the entire Vatican II program of heresy and apostasy.  The “Neo-Catholic” is someone who may defend kissing the Koran; he may agree with the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification which repudiates the Council of Trent and teaches Justification by faith alone; the “Neo-Catholic” may defend the idea that Jews don’t need to convert to Jesus Christ for salvation; and he may agree with the Vatican that the Schismatic Orthodox should not believe in the Papacy.

So, what do the authors of The Great Façade have to say about these heretics, schismatics and apostates whom they call “Neo-Catholics”?

Thomas Woods and Christopher Ferrara, The Great Façade, p. 303: “We stress once again that none of this is to suggest that the neo-Catholic is not a true Catholic. Rather, we mean to say that he is a true Catholic…”

Thomas Woods and Christopher Ferrara, The Great Façade, p. 25: “That the neo-Catholics have accommodated themselves to the postconciliar revolution does not entitle us to question their orthodoxy or personal piety – any more than neo-Catholics are entitled to question (as they so often do) the Catholic bona fides of traditionalists …”

It “does not entitle us to question their orthodoxy” – “any more than neo-Catholics are entitled to question the Catholic bona fides of traditionalists”!  This means that, according to the authors of The Great Façade, the “Neo-Catholic” and the “traditionalist” are on the same level as far as Catholic orthodoxy goes.  They are both true Catholics and to question the orthodoxy of the “Neo-Catholic” would be equivalent to questioning the Catholic bona fides of traditionalists!  Needless to say, such an assertion is a denial of the Catholic faith.  And it should be obvious that such a statement is a denial of the faith, for the reasons already discussed in this article; for the Vatican II apostasy – which the “Neo-Catholics” accept and defend – involves the repudiation of the most basic dogmas in Catholicism: such as the necessity of the Papacy for salvation; the necessity of belief in Our Lord; and outside the Church there is no salvation.  In fact, as one person writing in the June 15, 2003 edition of The Remnant (whose press also published The Great Façade) noted:

“Messrs. Ferrara and Woods go out of their way to assure their readers that they consider ‘neo-Catholics’ to be fellow Catholics, members of the same Church to which they (the authors) belong, and adherents of the same faith to which they subscribe.”

The authors of The Great Façade believe that those who accept and defend a non-Catholic, heretical and apostate Vatican II religion are their fellow Catholics, members of the same Church to which they belong, and adherents of the same faith to which they subscribe.  What more proof is necessary to show that the resistance offered by The Great Façade, The Remnant, etc. is a false resistance of union with non-Catholics (“the Neo-Catholics”) and a non-Catholic sect (the Vatican II sect of Antipope John Paul II), which repudiates the conversion of non-Catholics and denies Our Lord and the Papacy?

Pope St. Leo the Great, Sermon 129: “Wherefore, since outside the Catholic Church there is nothing perfect, nothing undefiled… we are in no way likened with those who are divided from the unity of the Body of Christ; we are joined in no communion.”

The Pointlessness of the False Resistance

If the Vatican II reforms are not heresy, and if Antipope John Paul II and the Vatican II bishops are Catholics, and if the “Neo-Catholic,” who accepts and defends these “reforms,” is a true Catholic, then what is the point of being a so-called “traditional Catholic,” according to the authors of The Great Façade?  What is the point of the many articles criticizing the “Neo-Catholics” in publications such as The Remnant?  The authors of The Great Façade not only tell us that the “Neo-Catholic” is a true Catholic, but they presume that most of these “Neo-Catholic” non-Catholics are in good faith!

Thomas Woods and Christopher Ferrara, The Great Façade, p. 26: “But what happens when the Popes, for the first time ever, venture novelties that effectively abolish a number of those traditions?  Neo-Catholicism is one attempt to answer that question – an answer we presume has, in most cases, been arrived at in good faith…”

Thomas Woods and Christopher Ferrara, The Great Façade, p. 235: “This is not to say that neo-Catholics as a group are subjectively complicit in the advances of the postconciliar revolution.  Most neo-Catholics have accepted all the changes in good faith…”

In fact, writing in the June 30, 2003 edition of The Remnant, Thomas Woods comments on a man named John Pacheco, a “Neo-Catholic” who brings forward  “a ceaseless supply of excuses and contrived explanations” for the Vatican II apostasy.  And what does Mr. Woods have to say about this “Neo-Catholic” defender of apostasy, John Pacheco?

Thomas Woods, “Defending the Indefensible,” The Remnant, June 30, 2003, p. 20: “John Pacheco is a man of good will; of that I am not in doubt…”

It is ironic that Mr. Woods has no doubt that an obstinate defender of heresy and apostasy is of good will, while the Catholic Church teaches that such persons – without any doubt – will perish forever unless they get the Catholic faith.

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832: “They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that ‘those who are not with Christ are against Him,’ (Lk. 11:23) and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him.  Therefore, without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate” (Athanasian Creed).

In their book, the authors of The Great Façade also made sure to declare that they had no intention of questioning the Catholic fidelity of the apostate nun, Mother Angelica.

Thomas Woods and Christopher Ferrara, The Great Façade, pp. 254-255 (footnote): “Thus, there is no intention here to question the Catholic fidelity of Mother Angelica or anyone else, but simply to discuss the implications of objective words and deeds of persons who participate in what we call the neo-Catholic system in the postconciliar Church.”

Mother Angelica’s Network EWTN is the leading broadcaster of Antipope John Paul II’s apostate message in the world today.  It actively promotes and defends his inter-religious gatherings with Satan’s false religions of the world.  The notorious apostate Mother Angelica even referred to non-Christian religions as “great religions” in a prayer that she prayed on EWTN.  In one program with the apostate priest Fr. Benedict Groeschel, who pointed out that after “Cardinal” John O’Connor’s death, the Jews held a religious service at St. Patrick’s Cathedral, Mother Angelica said “that’s awesome!”  Mother Angelica’s EWTN is also an adamant defender of the heresies of the Second Vatican Council, even carrying a program on Vatican II called “Council of Faith.”  EWTN also carries and actively promotes a show called The Journey Home, a show which features converts to the Vatican II Church of Antipope John Paul II.  While the program not infrequently contains some very interesting and valuable information, almost every “convert” that The Journey Home features indicates in the discussion that members of the Protestant religion from which he or she just converted are going to heaven too.  This proves that EWTN, in addition to the converts to the Vatican II sect, and even their “apologists” trying to convert others to the Vatican II sect, all deny the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation in radical and blunt fashion, just like Antipope John Paul II and his bishops.

While no one is saying that EWTN does not have some valuable programs that can be viewed with much benefit, to assert in a discussion of “Vatican II and the Regime of Novelty in the Roman Catholic Church” that “there is no intention here to question the Catholic fidelity of Mother Angelica or anyone else,” as the authors of The Great Façade do, is simply to deny the faith and to patronize heretics who promote apostasy and religious indifferentism of the worst kind.

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30: “… for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; BUT WHEN THEY SEE THAT SOMEONE IS A HERETIC BY HIS EXTERNAL WORKS, THEY JUDGE HIM TO BE A HERETIC PURE AND SIMPLE, AND CONDEMN HIM AS A HERETIC.”

Vatican II Contains No Error?

On page 88 of The Great Façade the authors say that the documents of Vatican II contain no explicit doctrinal error!

Thomas Woods and Christopher Ferrara, The Great Façade, p. 88: “Granted, none of the conciliar documents contains any explicit doctrinal error; and Paul VI did act decisively in several instances to prevent outright errors from being promulgated as Catholic doctrine.”

This is completely heretical.  According to the above, none of the following Vatican II heresies are explicit doctrinal errors:

1. Christ is united with each man (Gaudium et Spes, 22)
2. Protestant religions are a means of salvation (Unitatis Redintegratio, 3)
3. Non-Catholics may lawfully receive Holy Communion (Orientalium ecclesiarum, 27)
4. Muslims and Catholics together worship God (Lumen Gentium, 16)
5. The Catholic Church is united with those who don’t accept the faith or the Papacy (Lumen Gentium, 15)
6. The College of Bishops is the subject of full and supreme power over the universal Church (Lumen Gentium, 22)
7. Some people above the age of reason don’t believe in God (i.e., are atheists) through no fault of their own (Lumen Gentium, 16)
8. The State exceeds its authority if it directs or prevents religious activity (Dignitatis Humanae, 3)
9. In Buddhism men reach the highest illumination (Nostra Aetate, 2)
10.  All things on earth should be related to man as their center and crown (Gaudium et Spes, 12)

A discussion of Vatican II’s “explicit doctrinal errors” could continue for pages.  For a full expose, see our article “The Principal Heresies of Vatican II” which catalogues these and many other heresies at length and in context.  But the authors of The Great Façade, because they desire to be obstinately entrenched within the structure of the non-Catholic Vatican II sect, apparently feel compelled to defend the legitimacy of the apostate Second Vatican Council, as proven by their ridiculous assertion that it contains no explicit doctrinal error.  This shows how those who feel that they can maintain the faith and resist the Vatican II apostasy while obstinately remaining united to the structure of Antipope John Paul II, which officially sanctions the apostate, evil and heretical teachings of Vatican II, are gravely mistaken.

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 66), June 29, 1943: “Certainly the loving Mother [the Church] is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed upon all…”

The New Mass is Valid?

Besides affirming that Vatican II contains no explicit doctrinal error, and that the Vatican II Antipopes are guilty of no heresy, and that the “Neo-Catholic” is a true Catholic, the authors of The Great Façade make sure to tell us again and again that the New Mass is valid.

Thomas Woods and Christopher Ferrara, The Great Façade, p. 97: “Anxious to persuade us of the new rite’s validity, which we accept…”

Thomas Woods and Christopher Ferrara, The Great Façade, p. 332: “… without denying the validity of the new Mass, we may legitimately hope and pray that the ‘renewal of the liturgy’ is forgotten…”

Thomas Woods and Christopher Ferrara, The Great Façade, p. 92: “… the new liturgy has not ended the valid confection of the Holy Eucharist …”

Thomas Woods and Christopher Ferrara, The Great Façade, p. 403: “… It is highly significant for our thesis that in order to be ‘reconciled’ with Rome and ‘end the schism,’ SSJV had merely to affirm what it never denied in the first place, that the Mass of Paul VI (when correctly celebrated according to the proper intention) is valid, that Vatican II is a Council of the Church…”

This is outrageous, for reasons that will be made clear below.  The irrefutable arguments against the validity of the New Mass have been demonstrated by a host of different authors in many different countries.  The New Mass has been proven so many times to be (at the very least) of gravely doubtful validity that one can only be flabbergasted by what is stated above.  The arguments made by so many different authors proving again and again that the New Mass is (at the very least) of doubtful validity include arguments from the highest Papal decrees, arguments from St. Thomas Aquinas, and unanswerable arguments from sacramental theology.  These arguments have been made by priests, monks, bishops and laypeople of all backgrounds and affiliations.  Anyone of good will who examines these facts must admit that the New Mass is (at the very least) of doubtful validity.  To indicate again and again that the New Mass is definitely valid, as the authors of The Great Façade do (thereby ignoring the well known facts which obliterate this absolutely ridiculous assertion), is simply an outrage and severely dishonest.  Consider the following well known facts.

Pope St. Pius V, De Defectibus, chapter 5: “The words of Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are these: For this is my Body.  And: For this is the Chalice of my Blood, of the new and eternal testament: the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins.  Now if one were to remove, or change anything in the form of the consecration of the Body and Blood, and in that very change of words the [new] wording would fail to mean the same thing, he would not consecrate the Sacrament.”

This teaching of Pope St. Pius V was included in the Roman Missal for almost 400 years and approved (at least tacitly) by more than 40 Popes.  As anyone can see, according to the wording of this decree, the New Mass isn’t valid, because the removal of “mysterium fidei” (the mystery of faith) from the New Mass, in addition to the change of the word “many” to “all,” changes the meaning of the words of consecration given above.  But there’s no doubt about the validity of the New Mass, eh?

Besides this, the dogmatic Council of Florence authoritatively confirms that the above words of consecration (which the New Mass does not have!), are the words given to the Church by Christ through Peter and Paul.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442, “Cantate Domino”: “However, since no explanation was given in the aforesaid decree of the Armenians in respect to the form of words which the holy Roman Church, relying on the teaching and authority of the apostles Peter and Paul, has always been wont to use in the consecration of the Lord’s Body and Blood, we concluded that it should be inserted in this present text.  It uses this form of words in the consecration of the Lord’s Body: For this is my body.  And of His blood: For this is the chalice of my blood, of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins.”

But there is no question about the validity of the New Mass, eh?  There are many other facts that could be brought forward (see our article, Is the New Mass Valid?), but as one can see from the above, only 1) a dishonest man or 2) a person totally unaware of the facts surrounding the issue would assert that the New Mass is definitely valid.  Yet the authors of The Great Facade affirm again and again that the New Mass is valid, without ever even hinting at the totally obvious truth, that the New Mass is (at the very least) of gravely doubtful validity.

By what authority do the authors of The Great Facade dare to obstinately assert that the consecration in the New Mass, which does not correspond to the words defined by the aforementioned solemn pronouncements of the Church, is valid?  By what authority do they dare to assert the New Mass is valid without the essential words given by Jesus Christ Himself (as the Council of Florence has recorded them)?  By daring to assert that the New Mass is unquestionably valid, in the face of the highest Papal decrees and the words of Jesus Christ Himself, the authors of The Great Façade call down damnation on themselves.

This is no small matter, as it concerns idolatry (worshipping an invalidly consecrated piece of bread) and the changing of the words of Jesus Christ Himself.  The aforementioned Papal teaching on the words of consecration necessary in the Roman Church shows that to obstinately affirm (i.e., while being aware of the above facts) that the New Mass is definitely valid (without admitting that it is at least doubtful) is an outrage.  And if the authors want to argue that they are simply following the authority of Antipope Paul VI and Antipope John Paul II, who have approved the New Mass, then they must also accept as unquestionably valid the approbation given by these same men to false ecumenism, the heresies in the New Catechism, the heresies in the New Code of Canon Law, the heresies in Vatican II, the heresies in Dominus Iesus, and the preposterous ecumenical Directory for the Application of the Principles and Norms of Ecumenism, just to name a few.

Yet, many so-called “traditional” groups commit just this outrage, by daring to assert in the face of words of Jesus Christ and the decrees declaring that these words are necessary that the New Mass is definitely valid, thereby deceiving their readership, encouraging idolatry and calling down the wrath of God on their heads.  The heretical and schismatic Society of St. Pius X is a group which has obstinately asserted this for years in its publications.  It is obvious that these groups obstinately affirm the validity of the New Mass because if they did not it would be much more difficult to defend their false position of allegiance to the Vatican II sect and Antipope John Paul II.

One should see that, aside from the obvious reasons, this issue of the validity of the New Mass is important because it shows that those who refuse even to acknowledge that the New Mass is of doubtful validity (such as the authors of The Great Façade) refuse to do so most probably because of their refusal to sever their allegiance to the Vatican II sect and Antipope John Paul II.

The same thing applies to the gravely doubtful new rites of Ordination, Confirmation and Extreme Unction, whose “validity” the authors of The Great Façade affirm without even hinting at the truth that they are all doubtful at the very least.  This is a true tragedy which is demonstrated, for instance, when  groups like The Remnant sponsor “traditional” pilgrimages to Europe.  These pilgrimages are often manned by invalidly ordained “priests” (who were “ordained” by “Bishops” themselves invalidly ordained in Antipope Paul VI’s new rite of Episcopal Consecration).  For this reason, the people going on these pilgrimages are often defrauded of valid sacraments (some of them without the slightest clue), simply because of this false resistance which accepts the hierarchy of Antipope John Paul II and the Vatican II sect, and therefore accepts Antipope Paul VI’s new rites of Ordination and Episcopal Consecration without question.

Clever Euphemisms and Playing Dumb

A euphemism is a “substitution of a mild or vague expression for a harsher or offensive one.”  For instance, if a man (God forbid) were to beat his wife, and the wife, instead of telling her friend that her husband beat her, rather told her that “he treats me badly,” she would be speaking euphemistically – she would be substituting a comparatively mild expression for the harsh truth.  This is relevant to this discussion because when reading the publications and books of those non-sedevacantists who write for so-called “traditional Catholic” periodicals, one finds euphemisms used all the time and quite dishonestly.  For instance, you will rarely (and basically never) see the so-called “traditional Catholics” in union with Antipope John Paul II call his actions what they really are: heresy and apostasy; rather, they will label them as “liberal” or “progressive” or “treacherous” or “modern” or “scandalous” or “novel.”  The consistent recourse to these euphemisms allows these authors to consistently avoid telling you the unfortunately harsh truth that needs to be told: that these actions are heresy and apostasy; and therefore these authors sin by omission and mislead the faithful.

Some of these authors will also “play dumb” when they encounter an absolutely heretical statement of Antipope John Paul II or someone else, by acting as if they don’t know what he is really saying, so that they can avoid having to tell their readers what it really is: heresy.

And due to the fact that the authors of The Great Façade insist that none of the “novelties” of the Vatican II sect constitute a formal denial of the Catholic faith, one finds them employing euphemisms (and, in my opinion, clearly playing dumb) in many instances in their book, to the great disservice of the truth.

For instance, speaking of the Vatican document Dominus Iesus, published by the Vatican and approved by Antipope John Paul II in 2000, the authors of The Great Façade discuss what Fr. Georges Cottier (the official theologian of Antipope John Paul II) had to say about this document, Dominus Iesus.

Thomas Woods and Christopher Ferrara, The Great Façade, p. 369: “Soothing ruffled feathers, Cottier assured Jewish leaders that ‘while [DI] repeats that the Church ‘possesses’ the fullness of the means of salvation, it does not exclude salvation for the Jews.’  What does that mean?  Did Fr. Cottier intend to suggest that the Jews have sufficient means of salvation without faith in Christ or baptism, even if the Church can offer them the ‘fullness’ of means?”

It is obvious what Cottier means.  He means that Jews can be saved, which is total heresy.  This is the consistent position of the Vatican under Antipope John Paul II.  But by “playing dumb,” as the authors of The Great Façade seem to do in this instance, they can avoid addressing the fact that Cottier (Antipope John Paul II’s official theologian) is an apostate.

The Great Façade also has a chapter called “Viruses in the Body of Christ.”  This chapter would have us believe that heresy and apostasy are just “viruses.”

Thomas Woods and Christopher Ferrara, The Great Façade, p. 65: “We contend that by introducing ‘ecumenism,’ ‘dialogue’ and various other ‘viral’ pseudo-concepts into the Mystical Body, Satan has found a means to confuse, divide and wreak havoc on the human element of the Church…”

“Ecumenism” and “dialogue”, as they are practiced by Antipope John Paul II and the Vatican II bishops, are not merely “‘viral’ pseudo-concepts.”  They are heresy and apostasy of the worst kind.  They involve respecting, embracing and praying with non-Christian religions of Satan.

Antipope John Paul II, Homily, Aug. 19, 1985: “As Vatican II taught us and as I, following my predecessor Paul VI, have often stated, there are many good and holy aspects in the Muslims’ way of life.  You are the respectful witnesses of the example which they give by their prayer of adoration of God.  You see how they try to put into practice the directions that have come from him, in obedience to his Law.  You observe the simplicity of life and generosity to the poor which faithful Muslims practice.  This is the living testimony of their faith.”

“Ecumenism” and “dialogue” involve declaring that the members of non-Catholic religions are on the path to salvation and should not be converted;

Antipope John Paul II, Address to Schismatic Teoctist, October 12, 2002: “The goal is, in the light of the sublime model of the Holy Trinity, to reach a unity which implies neither absorption nor fusion (cf. Slavorum apostolic, n. 27)…”

Antipope John Paul II, Redemptoris Missio (# 55), Dec. 7, 1990: “Although the Church gladly acknowledges whatever is holy and true in the religious traditions of Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam as a reflection of that truth which enlightens all people, this does not lessen her duty and resolve to proclaim without fail Jesus Christ who is ‘the way, and the truth and the life.’  The fact that the followers of other religions can receive God’s grace and be saved by Christ apart from the ordinary means which he has established does not thereby cancel the call to faith and Baptism which God wills for all people.”

Antipope John Paul II, General Audience, May 31, 1995: “The axiom extra Ecclesiam nulla salus – ‘outside the Church there is no salvation’ – stated by St. Cyprian (Epist. 73 21, PL 1123 AB), belongs to Christian tradition and was included in the Fourth Lateran Council (DS 802), in the Bull Unam sanctam of Boniface VIII (DS 870) and in the Council of Florence (Decretum pro Jacobitis, DS 1351)….      For those, however, who have not received the Gospel proclamation, as I wrote in the Encyclical Redemptoris missio, salvation is accessible in mysterious ways, inasmuch as divine grace is granted to them by virtue of Christ’s redeeming sacrifice, without external membership in the Church, but nonetheless always in relation to her (cf. n. 10).  It is a ‘mysterious relationship’: mysterious for those who receive the grace, because they do not know the Church and sometimes even outwardly reject her…”

(As an aside, this quotation proves that the Antipope John Paul II is well aware of the thrice defined dogma which he consistently denies.  He even gives the Denzinger-Schonmetzer (DS) numbers!)

“Ecumenism” and “Dialogue” also involve Joint Declarations with non-Catholic sects which repudiate the Council of Trent;

Vatican-Lutheran Agreement on the Doctrine of Justification: “Justification takes place by grace alone, by faith alone, the person is justified apart from works” (Annex, # 2, C).

They involve lifting excommunications and anathemas against heretics and schismatics;

Antipope John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint (# 42), May 25, 1995: “The ‘universal brotherhood’ of Christians has become a firm ecumenical conviction.  Consigning to oblivion the excommunications of the past, Communities which were once rivals are now in many cases helping one another: places of worship are sometimes lent out…”

They involve donating relics and money to non-Catholic sects; they involve kissing the Koran, attending Mosques, Synagogues, Buddhist temples and Lutheran churches, etc., etc., etc.  Ecumenism and dialogue, as practiced by the Vatican II Church, therefore represent a total apostasy from the true faith and from Jesus Christ.  But labeling these things as “viral pseudo-concepts,” as the authors of The Great Façade do, allows one to avoid labeling them as a rejection of the true faith.  This is very misleading by omission and evil in its consequences.  It is also a denial of the Catholic faith because the authors do not hold that “ecumenism”/“dialogue” – as practiced by Antipope John Paul II – is heresy.

Never Identifying a Heresy

The authors of The Great Façade and other defenders of Antipope John Paul II often give their readers the impression that Catholics (such as the sedevacantists) have no authority or competence to judge that a particular statement or action is heretical.

Thomas Woods and Christopher Ferrara, The Great Façade, p. 42: “But none of these apparent contradictions involves the formal repudiation of any article of divine and Catholic faith...”

Notice that they don’t say here that the contradictions are real, but apparent, implying that the two apparently contradictory teachings (pre-Vatican II teaching and post-Vatican II novelties) could be reconciled.  The authors of The Great Façade display repeatedly that they don’t feel that they have any authority to assert that anything is a real contradiction to Catholic teaching.

Thomas Woods and Christopher Ferrara, The Great Façade, p. 364: “Only the infallible Magisterium can explain what has happened to the teaching on the Mystical Body of Christ, and how that teaching can be integrated with a ‘Church of Christ’ that is not identical to the Roman Catholic Church.”

This means that it is possible that the outrageous heresy on the Church of Christ proclaimed by Cardinal Ratzinger – that the Church of Christ is not identical to the Roman Catholic Church! – could be integrated or reconciled with Catholic teaching!  This means that it is not definite that the Church of Christ is the Roman Catholic Church!  This is totally heretical.  And this heresy of Woods and Ferrara, in my opinion, clearly stems from their false idea that the Vatican II sect’s heresies are only “apparent” contradictions, not real denials of Catholic dogma.  By emphasizing that they are “apparent” contradictions, and by refusing to label them as definite heresies, the authors of The Great Façade naturally must leave open the possibility that these heresies are possibly reconcilable with Catholic dogma (as they indicate above).  And by indicating that these heresies are possibly reconcilable with Catholic dogma, they confuse heresy with dogma; they conflate (or fuse together) Catholic truth with heretical error, all because they feel that they have no authority to say that the Vatican II heresies are definitely heretical, but only apparent contradictions that could be reconciled with Catholic teaching.

And this brings me to the essential point of this section, which is that IF YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT A DOGMA ISN’T, THEN YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT IT IS.  This point, which seems obvious but is missed by so many, cannot be stressed enough, as it refutes the argumentation of many non-sedevacantists, who consistently claim that Catholics have no authority to identify that a statement is really and truly heretical.

For instance, is the statement Jesus Christ is not present in the Holy Eucharist contrary to Catholic dogma?  Is it a real contradiction to Catholic dogma, or is it only an apparent contradiction that conceivably could be integrated with Catholic teaching by the infallible Magisterium?

The answer, of course, is that the above statement is a real contradiction and could never be integrated with Catholic teaching!  A Catholic knows, and affirms without hesitation, that the above statement (Jesus Christ is not present in the Eucharist) is definitely (not apparently) contrary to Catholic teaching.  But according to the logic of the authors of The Great Façade, a Catholic could only say that the above is an apparent contradiction to Catholic teaching, and he must be open to the possibility that it could be integrated with the teaching of the Magisterium.

Therefore, if a person cannot affirm without hesitation that Jesus Christ is not present in the Holy Eucharist is heretical, then he does not believe in the dogma that Jesus Christ is present in the Eucharist.  IF HE CANNOT AFFIRM FOR CERTAIN WHAT THE DOGMA ISN’T (i.e. what is heretical), THEN HE CANNOT AFFIRM FOR CERTAIN WHAT THE DOGMA IS.

Hence, if the authors of The Great Façade do not affirm without hesitation that the new teaching of Antipope John Paul II, Cardinal Ratzinger and the Vatican on the Mystical Body of Christ – that the Mystical Body of Christ is not identical to the Roman Catholic Church – is heretical (which they do not), then they do not believe in the dogma that the Mystical Body of Christ = the Roman Catholic Church.  It is that simple; since they cannot affirm or know for sure what this dogma definitely is not, they cannot affirm or know for sure what the dogma is.

Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis (# 27), Aug. 12, 1950: “Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the sources of divine revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.  Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation.”

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra: “With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church … which represents one mystical body…”

And herein we see the difference between Catholics and the authors of The Great Façade.  Catholics know that it is HERESY for Cardinal Ratzinger, Antipope John Paul II and the Vatican to assert that the Mystical Body of Christ is not identical to the Roman Catholic Church, because Catholics know for sure that the Roman Catholic Church is identical to the Mystical Body.  But this is not so with the authors of The Great Façade.

Thomas Woods and Christopher Ferrara, The Great Façade, p. 360: “... that the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church are distinct from each other, a conclusion whose harmony with Catholic teaching is not apparent.”

Not apparent?  Try non-existent or impossible!  That is what a Catholic would say.  I will close this section with a very interesting quotation from Pope Pius XI on how Catholics, regardless of their age or learning, and without any lengthy effort, can know the deposit of truth, and therefore what is heretical or contrary to it – such as the heresies of the Vatican II sect and Antipope John Paul II.

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (#8), Jan. 6, 1928: “In this matter, those also turn aside from the right path, who think that the deposit of truth is only to be found with such laborious trouble, and with such lengthy study and discussion, that a man’s life would hardly suffice to find and take possession of it; as if the most merciful God had spoken through the prophets and His only-begotten Son merely in order that a few, and those advanced in years, should learn what He has revealed through them, and not that He might inculcate a doctrine of faith and morals, by which man should be guided throughout the whole of His life.”

Perverting Catholic Teaching on the Requirement for Heresy

Besides displaying the heretical idea that Catholics have no authority to identify a heresy, the authors of The Great Façade pervert the Catholic teaching on the requirements for heresy.

Thomas Woods and Christopher Ferrara, The Great Façade, p. 57: “Not even John Paul II’s recent statement ‘May St. John the Baptist protect Islam’ is heresy, properly speaking, since the Pope’s public expression of a wish that a false religion receive divine protection, while certainly scandalous and even stupefying, does not translate into a direct denial of any article of divine and Catholic faith.”

This is a blasphemous and heretical assertion for the reasons that we already discussed in the section on the Jews.  However, we must specifically refute this again.  The authors of The Great Façade repeatedly create the impression that unless one denies an article of divine and Catholic faith verbatim (i.e., word for word) he is not uttering heresy.  But this is inconsistent with Church history and Catholic teaching.  Consider the statement, Only the Body of Jesus Christ is in heaven.  Is this statement heretical?  Absolutely.  But is it word-for-word contrary to any dogma?  No, there is no dogmatic statement in the Catholic Church which declares, Jesus Christ’s Body is not the only Body in heaven.  There is, rather, the dogmatic statement declaring that Our Lady’s body was also assumed into heaven. (Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus, Nov. 1, 1950, ex cathedra).

Therefore, it is heretical to say that Only the Body of Jesus Christ is in heaven because it is equivalent to saying that Mary’s body was not assumed into heaven, which is heretical.  This is one of countless examples of heretical statements that are not necessarily word-for-word denials of Catholic teaching, but have meanings that are equivalent to denials of Catholic teaching and thus are heretical. 

Another example would be the statement, Jesus Christ does not have the attributes of God.   Is this heresy?  Absolutely.  But is it word-for-word contrary to any dogma?  No, I’m quite sure that there is no dogmatic statement in Church history which declares verbatim: Jesus Christ has the attributes of God.  There are countless statements declaring that He is God; that He is divine; that He is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.  But the statement Jesus Christ has the attributes of God cannot be found anywhere. Thus, the heretical statement Jesus Christ does not have the attributes of God is a clear example of a heresy that is not word-for-word contrary to Catholic teaching, but has a meaning that is equivalent to a denial of Catholic teaching and thus is heretical.

In fact, almost none of the heresies in Church history were verbatim denials of Catholic dogma, but rather statements which had meanings that were denials of Catholic dogma.  And with that I return to the statement by the authors of The Great Facade that asking St. John the Baptist to protect the false religion of Islam (a non-Christian religion which rejects the God of the Catholic Church) is not heresy!  To illustrate how false this assertion is, suppose someone said: “May St. John the Baptist protect Arianism!” (For those who don’t know, Arianism was the 4th Century heresy which denied the Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ.)  Would it be heresy to ask St. John the Baptist to protect Arianism?  Of course it would be heresy!  It would be to deny the Divinity of Christ by endorsing and supporting the Arian heresy as something that should be protected.

Therefore, the statement May St. John the Baptist protect Islam is also heresy against the Catholic faith, for it asserts that Islam (the denial of Jesus Christ and all Catholic dogmas) is something that should be protected.  It is, in fact, a worse heresy than asking St. John the Baptist to protect Arianism or even Abortion.  It is a complete rejection of the dogmas of the Trinity, the Incarnation and outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation, and all Catholic dogmas altogether (i.e. apostasy), and this should be obvious to anyone of good will.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, WHO WERE WONT TO HOLD AS OUTSIDE CATHOLIC COMMUNION, AND ALIEN TO THE CHURCH, WHOEVER WOULD RECEDE IN THE LEAST DEGREE FROM ANY POINT OF DOCTRINE PROPOSED BY HER AUTHORITATIVE MAGISTERIUM.”

Pope Pius XI confirms the aforementioned point, by stating that all those who hold the opinion that all religions are more or less good and praiseworthy, such as Antipope John Paul II, have completely rejected the faith – thus proving that holding a position or opinion that is contrary to dogma is heresy, even if it does not word-for-word repudiate Catholic truth.

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 2), Jan. 6, 1928: “Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule.  Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little, turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.”

Antipope John Paul II’s asking St. John the Baptist to protect Islam, in addition to his other countless statements and acts, demonstrates beyond doubt that he fits neatly into the above category: one who has “rejected” and “altogether abandon[ed] the divinely revealed religion,” for consistently manifesting his position that all religions are more or less good and praiseworthy.

Antipope John Paul II, Angelus Address, Oct. 12, 1986: “In a few days we shall go to Assisi, representatives of the Catholic Church, of other Christian Churches and ecclesial communities, and of the great religions of the world.  We shall go as believers in God… As you well know, the United Nations Organization has declared 1986 the International Year of Peace.  I took the opportunity to offer an invitation to make this year the occasion of a ‘worldwide movement of prayer for peace’ (Homily of 25 Jan 1986).  I issued this invitation to ‘believers of all religions.”

This Angelus Address confirms that Antipope John Paul II considers all religions to be not merely more or less good and praiseworthy, but “great”!

Antipope John Paul II, Speech at Wadi al-Kharrar, March 21, 2000: “May Saint John the Baptist protect Islam and all the people of Jordan, and all who participated in this celebration, a memorable celebration.”

Antipope John Paul II, Centesimus Annus (60): “In that same Encyclical [Sollicitudo Rei Socialis] I also addressed an appeal to the Christian Churches and to all the great world religions, inviting them to offer the unanimous witness of our common convictions regarding the dignity of man, created by God.”

Antipope John Paul II, Speech in New Delhi, India, November 7, 1999: “Distinguished representatives of various Christian Communities and of the great religions of India are present here today.”

Antipope John Paul II, Message to Card. Cassidy for 13th Meeting of People and Religions, Sept. 21, 2000: “… the great world religions who have gathered this year in Lisbon for the 13th International Meeting on the theme: ‘Oceans of Peace: Religions and Cultures in Dialogue.’”

Those who are aware of these facts and refuse to consider Antipope John Paul II as one who has “reject[ed]” and “altogether abandon[ed] the divinely revealed religion,” to quote Pope Pius XI, are rejecting the teaching of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

The Result of their argumentation: A Defected Church

Thomas Woods and Christopher Ferrara, The Great Façade, p. 380: “After 2000 years, the Church has suddenly stopped calling for the conversion of non-Catholics to save them from hell.”

This is impossible; for if the Catholic Church could cease calling non-Catholics to be saved from hell it would then cease to be the one true Church of God (an impossibility).

Pope Pius XI, Lux Veritatis (#2), Dec. 25, 1931: “The Church of God, on the contrary, in the midst of so many storms and the vicissitudes of things that perish, trusting in God alone, has ever gone on her way, with firm, secure steps, and has never ceased from her strenuous defense of the integrity of the sacred deposit of Gospel truth, entrusted to her by her Founder.”

Notice how diametrically opposed the two statements above are.  The Catholic Church will always call non-Catholics to be saved from hell, because it is the one true Church of God instituted for that purpose, even if the remnant Church which does this is just a tiny amount compared to the bulk of humanity.  The fact that the authors of The Great Façade are forced to make the assertion that they do above, unfortunately demonstrates that they are not defending the Catholic Church, but a “union” within a non-Catholic Church of heretics (the Vatican II sect) which rejects the conversion of non-Catholics.

Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208: “By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”

Denying Outside the Church There is No Salvation

The authors of The Great Façade discuss the dogma Outside the Church there is no salvation in many places in their book.  But in an almost every instance, the authors speak of the “objective” necessity of belonging to the Catholic Church for salvation.  By doing this, the authors of The Great Façade are clearly implying that non-Catholics, including Jews, could still possibly be saved without coming to Christ (subjectively speaking), which is heresy.

Thomas Woods and Christopher Ferrara, The Great Façade, p. 371: “… why not end a long period of postconciliar confusion by stating forthrightly what the Church has always taught before the Council: ‘Yes, objectively speaking, a Jew must come to Christ and be baptized in order to be saved…”

This clearly implies that (subjectively) a Jew could be saved without coming to Christ (a horrible heresy and a blatant denial of defined dogma).  Thus, the authors of The Great Façade do not really believe in Outside the Church there is no salvation, but imply throughout their book that Jews could be saved without coming to Christ subjectively speaking, which is a rejection of Catholic dogma.

What is alarming is that many people who consider themselves “traditional Catholics” have adopted this heresy, which asserts that the dogma Outside the Church there is no salvation is only true “objectively,” which necessarily means that non-Catholics can be saved “subjectively,” which means that the end result is a denial of the defined dogma.  It is truly diabolical double-talk.  It is no different from saying that, “Jesus Christ is objectively the Son of God.”  Could a Catholic hold that?  No, he could not, because Jesus Christ is not objectively the Son of God – He is the Son of God, period!  Thus, I cannot indicate that non-Catholics will not be saved objectively speaking, because this implies the heresy and false doctrine that they can be saved subjectively speaking.  And to say that one dogma (outside the Church there is no salvation) is only true objectively is to say that the other (Jesus Christ is the Son of God) is only true objectively.  It is to assert the heresy that truths are not really truths, but only presumptions or policies that we go by.

Pope Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #22:“The dogmas which the Church professes as revealed are not truths fallen from heaven, but they are a kind of interpretation of religious facts, which the human mind by a laborious effort prepared for itself.”- Condemned (Denz. 2022)

Dogmas are truths fallen from heaven.  To say that any dogma (e.g., the dogma that non-Catholics must become Catholic to be saved) may have a “subjective” reality that is different from the revealed truth is heresy.  It is a denial of that truth.  Therefore, the idea that non-Catholics can be saved subjectively is blatant heresy!  But this is what the authors of The Great Façade imply throughout their book.

Thomas Woods and Christopher Ferrara, The Great Façade, p. 343: “We cannot see how the followers of other religions would have any idea from reading DI as a whole that they (like we) are objectively in need of the helps that only the Catholic Church provides in order to save their souls from hell.”

Thomas Woods and Christopher Ferrara, The Great Façade, p. 344: “The traditional tone of pessimism regarding the prospects of eternal bliss for those objectively outside the Catholic Church is hardly a disputable adjunct of the Catholic faith…”

Thomas Woods and Christopher Ferrara, The Great Façade, p. 354, speaking of non-Catholics: “As laymen, we are mystified that today’s Vatican apparatus expresses no concern about the eternal fate of souls who, by every objective measure, are in far greater danger of damnation than the comparatively upright Protestants Bl. Pius IX had in view…”

Thomas Woods and Christopher Ferrara, The Great Façade, p. 355: “But when it comes to Protestants and the Orthodox, who are objectively guilty of both schism and heresy, the neo-Catholics, along with DI, retreat into the ambiguities of Vatican II.”

Thomas Woods and Christopher Ferrara, The Great Façade, p. 363: “As a consequence, the whole concept of membership in the Church – the very term Father Ratzinger disparaged as ‘terminological armor’ – is almost completely lost, and with it the teaching that Church membership is objectively necessary for salvation.”

I could quote a number of other passages to this effect, but these suffice to show that the authors of The Great Façade don’t hold Church teaching, but imply throughout their book that non-Catholics can be saved.  The Catholic Church teaches that Church membership is necessary for salvation.  It nowhere teaches what the authors of The Great Façade say on page 363 of their book, that “Church membership is objectively necessary for salvation.”

Catholic Doctrine Not Involved?

The authors of The Great Façade tell us again and again that the Vatican II novelties do not involve Catholic doctrine.

Thomas Woods and Christopher Ferrara, The Great Façade, p. 16: “… a single Council and the revolutionary reforms and new attitudes it engendered – all of them outside the realm of Catholic doctrine as such.”

Thomas Woods and Christopher Ferrara, The Great Façade, p. 17: “For, as we will demonstrate, the distinctive legacy of Vatican II that the neo-Catholic celebrates and demands that we all embrace does not consist in doctrine, but in a defense of ecclesial novelties…”

So the revolutionary “reforms” of the Vatican II sect are all outside the realm of Catholic doctrine, eh?  So I guess the denial of Jesus Christ, the denial of the necessity of the Papacy, the denial of the teaching of the Church on the Mystical Body of Christ, and the denial of outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation, are all “outside the realm of Catholic doctrine as such”?  Are the authors of The Great Façade serious?  Apparently they are.

Thomas Woods and Christopher Ferrara, The Great Façade, p. 56: “One could multiply examples of apparent contradictions between pre- and postconciliar teaching on matters that – we emphasize – are not strictly de fide.”

Matters – they emphasize – which are not de fide (of the faith)?  What on earth are they talking about?  Are not the “novelties” of the Vatican II sect, well documented in their book, repudiations of de fide dogmas on the Church, Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Papacy?  Yes indeed.  In fact, just four pages before making the above assertion, the authors of The Great Façade say this about the de fide teaching of the Church on Hell:

Thomas Woods and Christopher Ferrara, The Great Façade, p. 52: “While the de fide teaching of the Church, revealed by Christ himself, is that the souls of the damned are in hell, John Paul II has suggested that it has not been revealed to us that any human beings at all are in hell.”

On page 56 the authors tell us that the post-Vatican II novelties are not contradictions on matters that are de fide; yet here (just four pages before that statement) they document how Antipope John Paul II has repudiated the de fide teaching of the Catholic Church that there are souls in Hell!  Thus, on page 56 they deny the very thing that they prove on page 52.

The Novelties are Not Magisterial

Besides indicating that the post-Vatican II heresies are not heresy and are outside the realm of doctrine, the authors of The Great Façade tell us that none of these “disastrous novelties” has been imposed by the Magisterium of Antipope John Paul II or his predecessors.

Thomas Woods and Christopher Ferrara, The Great Façade, p. 58: “On the other hand, the traditionalists we would defend have been in just the right place all along: the postconciliar novelties are neither Magisterial nor formally heretical; they do not actually bind the Church to an act of belief in what is wrong.”

This statement is clearly indefensible from their perspective.  Many of our articles demonstrate in detail that if Antipope John Paul II and his predecessors were legitimate Popes (which they most certainly weren’t), they did use their “Magisterium” to impose many of these heresies upon Catholics (which is impossible for a true Pope to do).

Antipope John Paul II, Laborem Exercens (#2), Sept. 14, 1981: “Evidence of this are the many documents of the magisterium issued by the popes and by the Second Vatican Council…”

This is one of many proofs that could be brought forward that if Antipope John Paul II and his predecessors were true Popes, the documents of Vatican II and the “postconciliar novelities” (i.e., heresies) that Vatican II taught and engendered, were Magisterial, exactly the opposite of what the authors of The Great Façade contend. (See “Was Vatican II Infallible?” and issue #4 of A Voice Crying in the Wilderness for more extensive proof).  And the fact that Antipope John Paul II and his predecessors have attempted to exercise their “Magisterium” to promulgate these heretical ideas of Vatican II proves that they were never true Popes.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “… Christ instituted a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium, which by His own power He strengthened, by the Spirit of truth He taught, and by miracles confirmed… As often, therefore, as it is declared on the authority of this teaching that this or that is contained in the deposit of divine revelation, it must be believed by every one as true.  If it could in any way be false, an evident contradiction follows; for then God Himself would be the author of error in man.”

Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri, Dec. 31, 1929: “Upon this magisterium Christ the Lord conferred immunity from error, together with the command to teach His doctrine to all.”

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 4, Chap. 4, ex cathedra: “So, this gift of truth and a never failing faith was divinely conferred upon Peter and his successors in this chair…”

Antipope John Paul II has also declared that to stand in the way of ecumenism is an offense against God.

Antipope John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint (# 99), May 25, 1995: “Ecumenism is not only an internal question of the Christian Communities.  It is a matter of the love which God has in Jesus Christ for all humanity; to stand in the way of this love is an offense against him and against his plan to gather all people in Christ.”

Ecumenism, among other things, is defined by Vatican II in its Decree on Ecumenism and by Antipope John Paul II in his new catechism (which references this decree over and over again) as: praying with Protestants; believing that Protestant religions are a means of salvation; acknowledging that Protestants are incorporated into Christ; respecting Protestant beliefs; acknowledging that Protestants are martyrs for Christ; respecting them as brothers in Christ, etc., etc. etc.  To stand in the way of this, says Antipope John Paul II in his teaching encyclical, is a sin.  Thus, the new false religion of ecumenism has been “Magisterially” imposed if Antipope John Paul II is the Pope, exactly the opposite of the contention of the authors of The Great Façade.

A Few Glaring Omissions

Obviously, no book about the Vatican II apostasy could possibly cover all of the heresies of Antipope John Paul II, since they are so numerous and so difficult to keep track of.  And I am not saying that the authors of The Great Façade omitted the following things deliberately (they certainly may not have); however, I find it of value to point out that the following heresies were not (at least as far as my examination could detect) mentioned even as doctrinal errors by the authors of The Great Façade, because if they were it would be basically impossible for them to seriously assert the things that they do in their book.

· Protestant Religions are a means of salvation.

This is one of the worst heresies of the Vatican II sect; it is so bad that most “traditionalist” priests who themselves believe in the heresy that non-Catholics can be saved are forced to condemn this as a denial of Outside the Church there is no salvation.  But why was this heresy – or “novelty” as the authors of The Great Façade like to say – not mentioned as an erroneous “novelty” or a doctrinal error in their book?  Perhaps because the above heresy on Protestant religions being means of salvation has been taught so many times by the Vatican II Antipopes that it is definitely a “Magisterial” teaching of the Catholic Church if they are legitimate Popes (which they aren’t).  In other words, if you accept Antipope John Paul II and the Vatican II sect, then the following heresy is an official teaching of your Church which you must accept, as it has been consistently reiterated by the “Ordinary and Universal Magisterium” of your Church.  And those who would claim that it wouldn’t qualify as part of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium are really arguing the impossible when we consider the sheer amount of times that this heresy has been repeated by Antipope John Paul II and his predecessors in encyclicals, apostolic exhortations, councils, etc., etc. (some addressed to the entire Church).

The heresy that Protestant religions are a means of salvation has been taught by the Second Vatican Council, by Antipope John Paul II’s New Catechism (#819) and by Antipope John Paul II’s encyclical Ut Unum Sint, just to name a few.

Antipope John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint (# 10): “It follows that these separated Churches and Communities, though we believe that they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and value in the mystery of salvation.  For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.”

It has also been taught by Antipope John Paul II in his “apostolic exhortation” Catechesi Tradendae (# 32) in addition to numerous other speeches, including his July 12, 1995 General Audience.

Antipope John Paul II, General Audience, July 12, 1995: “We must note further that, according to the Council, those who are separated from the Catholic Church preserve a certain communion – incomplete but real with her… It affirms that the Churches and ecclesial communities are not in fact deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation.  ‘For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation’ (Unitatis redintegratio, n. 3).”

It is unthinkable that a legitimate Pope could teach blatant heresy in official document after official document after official document after official document.

Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis (#20), August 12, 1950: “Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of the their Teaching Authority.  For these matters are taught with the Ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: ‘He who heareth you, heareth me’; and generally what is expounded in Encyclical Letters already appertains to Catholic doctrine.”

· Saints and Martyrs in Other Religions

Antipope John Paul II has taught that non-Catholic sects have Saints and Martyrs so many times that it is truly incredible.  Here are just a few times that he has uttered this heresy:

Antipope John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint (# 82), May 25, 1995: “All Christian Communities know that, thanks to the power given by the Spirit, obeying that will and overcoming those obstacles are not beyond their reach.  All of them in fact have martyrs for the Christian faith.”

As an aside, this also means that all Christian Communities possess the true Christian faith.

Antipope John Paul II, speech to schismatic Patriarch Karekin II, Nov. 9, 2000: “Again, I thank Your Holiness for your willingness to be part of that liturgy in the person of your representative.  In effect, ‘perhaps the most convincing form of ecumenism is the ecumenism of the saints and of the martyrs.  The communio sanctorum speaks louder than the things which divide us.’”

Antipope John Paul II, Angelus Address, Sept. 19, 1993: “In the unbounded space of Eastern Europe, the Orthodox Church too can well say at the end of this century what the Fathers of the Church had proclaimed about the initial spread of the Gospel: ‘Sanguis martyrum – semen Christianorum’ [the blood of martyrs is the seed of Christians].”

Antipope John Paul II, Tertio Millennio Adveniente (# 37), Nov. 10, 1994: “The witness to Christ borne even to the shedding of blood has become a common inheritance of Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans and Protestants, as Pope Paul VI pointed out in his Homily for the Canonization of the Ugandan Martyrs.”

Antipope John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint (# 1), May 25, 1995: “The courageous witness of so many martyrs of our century, including members of Churches and Ecclesial Communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church, gives new vigor to the Council’s call and reminds us of our duty to listen to and put into practice its exhortation.”

Antipope John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint (# 84), May 25, 1995: “In a theocentric vision, we Christians already have a common martyrology.  This includes the martyrs of our own century, more numerous than one might think…”

Antipope John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint (# 84), May 25, 1995: “Albeit in an invisible way, the communion between our Communities, even if still incomplete, is truly and solidly grounded in the full communion of the saints - those who, at end of a life faithful to grace, are in communion with Christ in glory.  These saints come from all the Churches and Ecclesial Communities which gave them entrance into the communion of salvation.”

Antipope John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint (# 84), May 25, 1995: “In the radiance of the ‘heritage of the saints’ belonging to all Communities, the ‘dialogue of conversion’ toward full and visible unity thus appears as a source of hope.  The universal presence of the saints is in fact a proof of the transcendent power of the Spirit.”

Antipope John Paul II, General Audience, May 12, 1999: “The experience of martyrdom joined Christians of various denominations in Romania.  The Orthodox, Catholic and Protestants gave a united witness to Christ by the sacrifice of their lives.”

Why wasn’t this incredible heresy exposed as doctrinal error in The Great Façade?  Perhaps because this heresy is about as formal or direct a denial of Catholic dogma as it gets.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, ex cathedra: “… no one, even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio, May 27, 1832: “Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life.”

In light of the above, what can one say about the following statement?

Thomas Woods and Christopher Ferrara, The Great Façade, p. 41: “As already noted, there can be no heresy without the obstinate denial of some article of divine and Catholic faith, and this cannot be found in any of the pronouncements of the Conciliar Popes…”

It is simply heretical nonsense!

·  Non-Catholics may lawfully receive Holy Communion; Christ is united with each man; Muslims worship the true God together with Catholics.

It is also noteworthy that Antipope John Paul II has consistently, officially and authoritatively taught that non-Catholics may lawfully receive Holy Communion; that Christ united Himself with each man in the Incarnation; and that Muslims together with Catholics worship the true God.  But these three heresies were not exposed even as errors in The Great Façade (as far as my examination could detect).  Is that because these horrible heresies and blasphemies have been enunciated by Antipope John Paul II in official document after official document, so that the authors of The Great Façade felt that by specifically labeling these “novelties” as theological errors they would actually be questioning the “Magisterial” teaching of Antipope John Paul II?

Imagine for a moment if Pope Leo XIII had taught something – let’s call it doctrine “x” – more than fifty times in speeches, encyclicals (some addressed to the whole Church) and apostolic exhortations.  And then imagine if the same doctrine “x” had also been promulgated by the apostolic authority of Pope Leo XIII in his official catechism to the entire Church.  And then imagine if the same doctrine “x” (which, as I said, had been taught by Leo XIII about fifty times and was also promulgated in his official catechism) was also based on a previous teaching of the same doctrine “x” by his predecessor at an ecumenical council where his predecessor also promulgated doctrine “x” by his apostolic authority.  Could any Catholic justifiably argue that doctrine “x” had not been taught by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church?  Not a chance in the world; it would be ridiculous to say so!  But this is exactly what those who obstinately hold Antipope John Paul II to be the Pope are arguing.  The following table effectively expresses the point.

	Non-Catholics may lawfully receive Holy Communion	Christ united Himself with each man in the Incarnation	Muslims and Catholics together worship the One True God
Encyclical	Antipope John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint (# 46), May 25, 1995: “… Catholic ministers are able, in certain particular cases, to administer the Sacraments of the Eucharist, Penance and Anointing of the Sick to Christians who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church...”	Antipope John Paul II, Redemptor Hominis (# 13), March 4, 1979: “… by his Incarnation, he, the Son of God, in a certain way united himself with each man.”	Antipope John Paul II, Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (# 47): “…Muslims who, like us, believe in the just and merciful God.”
Authoritative Catechism	Antipope John Paul II, Catechism of the Catholic Church (# 1401): “… Catholic ministers may give the sacraments of Eucharist, Penance, and Anointing of the Sick to other Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church…”	Antipope John Paul II, Catechism of the Catholic Church (# 521): “By his Incarnation, he, the Son of God, has in a certain way united himself with each man.”	Antipope John Paul II, Catechism of the Catholic Church (# 841): “… Muslims… together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”	Antipope John Paul II, Fidei Depositum, Oct. 11, 1992: “The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved June 25th last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of Catholic doctrine… I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith.”
Vatican II Document	Antipope Paul VI, Vatican II document Orientalium Ecclesiarum # 27: “… the sacraments of Penance, Holy Eucharist, and the anointing of sick may be conferred on eastern Christians who in good faith are separated from the Catholic Church...”	Antipope Paul VI, Vatican II document Gaudium et Spes # 22: “For by His incarnation the Son of God united Himself in some way with every human being.”	Antipope Paul VI, Vatican II document Lumen Gentium # 16: “… Muslims… profess to hold the faith of Abraham and along with us they worship the one merciful God who will judge mankind on the last day.”	Antipope Paul VI, at the end of every Vatican II document: “EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE THINGS SET FORTH IN THIS DECREE HAS WON THE CONSENT OF THE FATHERS.  WE, TOO, BY THE APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY CONFERRED ON US BY CHRIST, JOIN WITH THE VENERABLE FATHERS IN APPROVING, DECREEING, AND ESTABLISHING THESE THINGS IN THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND WE DIRECT THAT WHAT HAS THUS BEEN ENACTED IN SYNOD BE PUBLISHED TO GOD’S GLORY... I, PAUL, BISHOP OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.”

The above heresies (“x” – that non-Catholics may lawfully receive Holy Communion; “x” – that Christ is united to each man; and “x” – that Muslims worship the one true God together with Catholics) have been set forth as the teaching of the Catholic Church by Antipope John Paul II in countless speeches, encyclicals and apostolic exhortations. (Antipope John Paul II has taught the heresy that Christ united Himself with each man in the Incarnation probably 500 times; he says it about 15 times in his first encyclical alone).

As one can see above, besides being mentioned countless times in his encyclicals, apostolic exhortations and speeches, all three of the above heresies (doctrines “x”) were officially set forth in Antipope John Paul II’s Catechism, which he solemnly promulgated to the entire Church and declared was “a sure norm for teaching the faith” (Fidei Depositum).

And, to top it off, all three of these heresies (all three doctrines “x”) are based on a previous teaching of these same heresies in an “ecumenical council” (Vatican II) that was solemnly promulgated by the “apostolic authority” of Antipope John Paul II’s predecessor (Antipope Paul VI)!

In light of all this, could those who accept Antipope John Paul II and Antipope Paul VI as valid Popes – as the authors of The Great Façade do – justifiably argue that the above heresies have not been taught by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church?  It would be absolutely absurd and theologically ridiculous to say so.  Thus, this proves again that Antipope John Paul II and Antipope Paul VI never sat in the Chair of Peter – and therefore cannot exercise any Magisterial authority in the Catholic Church – but are in fact apostate Antipopes.  The Catholic Church does not and cannot teach the above heresies.

Pope St. Pius X, Editae Saepe (#8), May 26, 1910: “In fact, only a miracle of that divine power could preserve the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, from blemish in the holiness of Her doctrine, law, and end in the midst of the flood of corruption and lapses of her members.”

Selective Judgments

While the authors of The Great Façade assert that Antipope John Paul II is guilty of no heresy, and that his hierarchy is the Catholic hierarchy, they do not refrain from judging and declaring that the CPA (the Catholic Patriotic Association) is schismatic (and therefore not Catholic).

Thomas Woods and Christopher Ferrara, The Great Façade, p. 260: “The CPA, therefore, is a Communist-created, Communist-controlled, blatantly schismatic, pro-abortion organization founded by the devil himself…”

For those who don’t know, the CPA is the puppet-Church of the Communist Regime in Red China.  It was created by the government to attempt to lure Catholics into a Communist-controlled sect that is loyal to the Satanic regime in China.  So, what the authors of The Great Façade say above is quite true.  The problem for them, however, is that this has never been declared by the Vatican II sect.  Quite to the contrary.

Thomas Woods and Christopher Ferrara, The Great Façade, pp. 261-262: “But far from declaring the excommunication or schism of the CPA bishops, the Vatican apparatus has assiduously courted them, to the applause of the neo-Catholic gallery.  In September of 2000, some nine months after the five illicit consecrations, Cardinal (‘Spirit of Assisi, come upon us all!’) Etchegaray went to China… During his trip, Etchegaray was shuttled around by the CPA bishops… CWNews.com (another neo-Catholic organ) favorably reported Etchegaray’s remark that ‘Basically it is a question of one Church, and one common faith…’”

Thus, the Vatican under Antipope John Paul II does not declare the schism or excommunication of the CPA – “far from” it.  “Cardinal” Etchegaray, President of a Vatican Pontifical Council, says that the Vatican and the CPA are “one Church.”  And Etchegaray is not alone in this matter.

Thomas Woods and Christopher Ferrara, The Great Façade, p. 263: “Cardinal Etchegaray is not just a lone wolf in this matter.  The Kung foundation notes that Cardinal Tomko, one of the Pope’s closest advisors, has been quoted as saying that the ‘two groups in the Church in China’ (the underground Roman Catholic Church and the CPA) are ‘not two Churches because we are all one Church,’…’”

And there’s more...

Thomas Woods and Christopher Ferrara, The Great Façade, pp. 263-264: “Even more telling is the Kung Foundation’s Open Letter of March 28, 2000, addressed to Cardinal Sodano… and other members of the Vatican apparatus, which notes that CPA priests have been trained in American seminaries, given faculties in American parishes with Vatican approval (according to Archbishop Levada and other American prelates) and are being supported by Catholic charities…’”

So, the Vatican “apparatus” of Antipope John Paul II trains the CPA priests in American seminaries, gives them faculties for American “parishes,” and supports them with “Catholic” charities.  It clearly does not regard the “blatantly schismatic” – “founded by the devil himself” – CPA as schismatic at all, but as Catholic: members of “one Church, and one common faith” with the Vatican, to quote the apostate “Cardinal” Etchegaray.

And this brings me to my question: by what authority do the authors of The Great Façade declare and judge that the current CPA is a “blatantly schismatic, pro-abortion organization founded by the devil himself”?  The Vatican II sect has never declared this about the current members of the CPA, so how do they?  By what authority do the authors of The Great Façade declare that the current CPA is schismatic (and therefore outside the Catholic Church)?

The answer is obvious: the authors of The Great Façade determine that the current CPA is a blatantly schismatic organization founded by the devil himself because of their personal recognition of what is manifest: that the current members of the CPA profess a faith which is condemned by the Catholic Church.  The authors of The Great Façade correctly conclude, therefore, that the current CPA is not Catholic.  And Catholics have done this for twenty centuries whenever they have encountered an Arian or an Albigensian or an “Old Catholic” or a Lutheran or a Methodist or a Southern Baptist.  One does not need – and has never needed – a specific declaration from the Church about each of these persons, which would be practically impossible anyway.  Rather, by their open rejection of Catholic teaching, or by their open rejection of the Catholic Church, or by their open religious affiliation with a church or group of persons which openly rejects the Catholic Church, a Catholic makes a sure and necessary judgment that such persons are not Catholic, but are heretics who are outside the Catholic Church.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, WHO WERE WONT TO HOLD AS OUTSIDE CATHOLIC COMMUNION, AND ALIEN TO THE CHURCH, WHOEVER WOULD RECEDE IN THE LEAST DEGREE FROM ANY POINT OF DOCTRINE PROPOSED BY HER AUTHORITATIVE MAGISTERIUM.”

Pope Pius IX, Graves ac diuturnae (#'s 1-4), March 23, 1875: “We have decreed and declared in Our letter of 21 November 1873 that those unfortunate men who belong to, adhere to, and support that sect should be considered as schismatics and separated from communion with the Church."

But whereas the authors of The Great Façade correctly apply this Catholic principle when discussing the CPA, they very hypocritically fail to do so when discussing Antipope John Paul II and his apostate bishops – who are more heretical and schismatic than the CPA, the scope of their heresies being far more vast.  Thus, by condemning the current CPA as non-Catholic, while they assert that the Vatican II sect is Catholic, the authors of The Great Façade contradict themselves and violate the very Catholic principles they apply elsewhere.

 St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30: “… for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; BUT WHEN THEY SEE THAT SOMEONE IS A HERETIC BY HIS EXTERNAL WORKS, THEY JUDGE HIM TO BE A HERETIC PURE AND SIMPLE, AND CONDEMN HIM AS A HERETIC.”

The truth is that not just the CPA, but both the CPA and the sect of Antipope John Paul II are blatantly schismatic, controlled and created by the devil himself.

Giving them a heresy

As I have documented in this article, the authors of The Great Façade and the false resistance for which it writes do not believe that there is any heresy in the pronouncements of Antipope John Paul II.  They don’t believe that there is any doctrinal error in Vatican II; they affirm the “validity” of the New Mass without a trace of doubt; they affirm that “Neo-Catholics” are true Catholics; and they don’t question the orthodoxy of the apostate Mother Angelica “or anyone else.”  Those who are supporting this heretical book – or the heretical publications which share and promote its heretical conclusions – should obviously cease all support immediately if they don’t want to deny the Catholic faith.

Thomas Woods and Christopher Ferrara, The Great Façade, p. 240: “While the vast conciliar and postconciliar program of innovation tends materially to oppose the perennial teaching of the Church in a number of areas, it does not involve any formal contradiction of an article of divine and Catholic faith.”

Thomas Woods and Christopher Ferrara, The Great Façade, p. 216: “We can anticipate the objection that these novelties do not, in themselves, amount to a formal contradiction of prior dogmatic teaching, which is certainly true…”

Thomas Woods and Christopher Ferrara, The Great Façade, p. 41: “As already noted, there can be no heresy without the obstinate denial of some article of divine and Catholic faith, and this cannot be found in any of the pronouncements of the Conciliar Popes…”

In this article I have discussed many things which prove that these assertions are simply blasphemous.  But I thought that it was appropriate to end this article with a quotation from Antipope John Paul II’s very first homily as Antipope, the very homily which will forever mark the beginning of his pastoral ministry.  The homily speaks for itself (L’Osservatore Romano, Nov. 2, 1978, p. 1).

Antipope John Paul II, Very First Homily – Marking Beginning of Pastoral Ministry, Sunday, Oct. 22, 1978: “’You are the Christ, the Son of the living God’ (Mt. 16:16).  These words were spoken by Simon, son of Jonah, in the district of Caesarea Philippi… On this day and in this place these same words must again be uttered and listened to - ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’… please listen once again, today in this sacred place, to the words uttered by Simon Peter.  In those words is the faith of the Church.  In those same words is the new truth, indeed, the ultimate and definitive truth about man: the Son of the living God – ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Conclusion

It is evident that those who think that they are resisting the Vatican II Apostasy by obstinately maintaining that Antipope John Paul II and his bishops are the Catholic authorities in the Church are gravely mistaken.  They are actually following the Antichrist.  The authors of The Great Façade, whose position is advanced, promoted or defended by a large group of people who claim to be “traditional Catholics,” is a false resistance of heresy.  It is actually a denial of Our Lord Jesus Christ, for it asserts that to deny Him is not to deny the faith and be a heretic.

I pray for those who have embraced this false resistance to the Vatican II sect, including the authors of The Great Façade.  My hope and desire is for all of them to convert and profess the truth faith.  However, this false resistance of apostasy that they are promoting is leading many souls to Hell.  And this infinite tragedy is only amplified when we consider that it is leading some of the most dedicated to hell: people who are dedicated to the traditional Mass, people who oppose many of the novelties and much of the Vatican II apostasy.  Yet, many of these people are falling into or being led into heresy themselves when they obstinately embrace the position of the authors of The Great Façade, The Remnant, Catholic Family News, etc.  These “traditionalists” are being led to believe or accept that the New Mass is valid; that Vatican II contained no explicit doctrinal error; that all the new sacramental rites of the Vatican II Church (including the gravely dubious new rite of ordination) are valid; that one can be a Catholic while denying Our Lord Jesus Christ; that one can be a Catholic while denying the Papacy; that one can be a Catholic while denying the Council of Trent; that one can be a Catholic and believe that Islam is a great religion that should be protected; that the Catholic Church can sanction altar girls, the New Mass, and giving Holy Communion to non-Catholics; that the Catholic Church can actually promulgate Antipope John Paul II’s New Catechism and New Code of Canon Law; that one can be a Catholic and hold that the Church of Christ does not equal the Roman Catholic Church; that there is no distinction, as far as membership in the Catholic Church goes, between apostates (Antipope John Paul II and his bishops) and Catholics; that the Church is not one in faith; and that one can remain in obstinate communion with heretics and apostates who deny Our Lord Jesus Christ (like Antipope John Paul II and his bishops) and still have the true faith, remain in the Church of Christ and save his soul.

There is only one way to oppose this apostasy of the Vatican II Church, and that is by embracing and communicating the complete truth, which is that Rome has lost the Catholic faith and become the Seat of the Antichrist (and given way to a counterfeit Church), exactly as Our Lady predicted on Sept. 19, 1846:

“Rome will lose the faith and become the Seat of the Antichrist… the Church will be in eclipse.”

St. Athanasius: “Even if Catholics faithful to tradition were reduced to a handful, they would be the true Church.”

The Catholic Church is composed of that “eclipsed” remnant of Catholics who maintain the faith whole and inviolate and do not compromise with heresy.  We are living through the Great Apostasy, not the great façade.

(Note: Emphasis given to quotations from The Great Façade in this article, such as bolding, underlining and italicization, is not necessarily that of the authors and is usually – if not always – my own.)