In aftermath of the Reinhard Marx scandal, a number of conciliar commentators, both likely and unlikely, zeroed in on the homokardinal’s disparaging remarks concerning the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic [sic] Church.
A staff-written article at Bergoglian News Agency (dba Catholic News Agency) ran under the headline: Cardinal Marx: ‘The Catechism is not set in stone. One is also allowed to doubt what it says’
Doubting the conciliar catechism?
What an outrage! Can any real Catholic actually do that?
On this, neo-cons, so-called “trads,” and their hybridized brethren, the tradservatives, agree; the answer is no.
For example, The Pillar, a relatively new conciliar media operation co-founded by former Bergoglian News Agency editors, Ed Condon and JD Flynn, stated:
In short, the faith taught by the Catechism is the doctrine of the Church, which the Church believes is the deposit of faith, revealed by God and interpreted by the Church’s magisterial authority. Catholics, therefore, are required to hold or assent to what the Catechism teaches, as an authoritative expression of Catholic doctrine.
In an article published by Crisis Magazine under the appropriately sarcastic title, Is Cardinal Marx’s Heresy Set in Stone?, writer Sean Fitzpatrick said that one may criticize “not what the Catechism teaches but, rather, how it teaches it.”
“The pedagogy of the Catechism [that is, its effectiveness as a teaching tool], therefore, is not out of reach of concerned bishops, theologians, or scholars,” he writes, “but the principles of the Catechism are, in fact, set in stone.”
Upon what do all of these commentators depend for their confidence in the doctrines set forth in the 1992 Catechism?
The assurance offered by John Paul II, whom every one of them cites.
For example, Condon and Flynn, remind their readers:
When Pope St. John Paul II promulgated the Catechism of the Catholic Church in 1992, he explained that the Catechism “is a statement of the Church’s faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith.”
The Catechism is an “authentic reference text for teaching Catholic doctrine,” the pope explained.
Bergoglian News Agency also informed readers that “Pope John Paul II described [the CCC] as ‘a sure norm for teaching the faith.’”
Sean Fitzpatrick did likewise, writing:
John Paul made clear that the Catechism is a text that can be absolutely relied on in teaching and understanding the Catholic Faith, making it an authentic reference and exposition for the magisterial doctrine of the Catholic Church.
CNA, Pillar, and Crisis are conciliar operations. As such, it’s no surprise that each would rush to defend the Catechism that John Paul II aptly described as “a very important contribution to the work of the revival of all ecclesial life, willed and put into application by the Second Vatican Council.”
In short, the Wojtylan Catechism is a conciliar counterfeit church handbook. It espouses such erroneous propositions as religious liberty, ecumenism, the salvific nature of heretical communities, the goodness of false religions, the “subsistit in” travesty, etc.
This is why the Society of St. Pius X had no choice but to conclude:
“The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a non-Catholic catechism.” (See 1994 article by Fr. Michel Simoulin, SSPX)
Oh, but that was then, and boy have things changed since.
So, what did today’s SSPX have to say about the homokardinal’s remarks?
On April 6, the SSPX posted an article with a headline calling Marx’s comments, “A new attack on the Catechism.”
The article – which is attributed to FSSPX.NEWS rather than to one singular writer whose opinions can simply be dismissed – tells readers:
Cardinal Reinhard Marx declared in an interview published on March 31 in the newspaper Stern, that the catechism of the Catholic Church “is not engraved in stone” and that, consequently, “one can doubt what it says.” In itself, this proposition is aberrant.
Really, now… Was it an aberrant proposition to declare that this book is “a non-Catholic catechism” in 1994? Is it aberrant to suggest, as the SSPX once rightly did, that those who wish to adhere to the true faith must doubt what this condemnable book teaches?
It gets worse, a lot worse.
The SSPX boldly placed its imprimatur on the Wojtylan Catechism, insisting:
The catechism is nothing other than the teaching of the Church, dogmatic and moral, made available to the faithful.
Nonsense! This wretched manual most certainly is not the teaching of the Church; it’s exactly what Fr. Simoulin concluded, non-Catholic, and every, single, solitary so-called “traditionalist” worthy of the name damn well knows it.
And yet the SSPX is rushing to its defense?
Archbishop Lefebvre once famously said, “Rome has lost the Faith.” Today, that indictment is just as true of the priestly society that he established.
I have many friends who assist at Holy Mass offered in Society chapels. It is the true Mass offered by true priests, and I would do likewise without hesitation.
At the same time, I will not play cheerleader for Team SSPX. They need to be viewed and acknowledged for what they have become, namely, just another subsidiary organization of the conciliar counterfeit church.
They are the very definition of controlled opposition.
This much was obvious two years ago when their District Superiors folded like a house of cards in the face of government mandates to suspend Holy Mass and the Sacraments in light of the COVID scam. Now, they are rushing to defend the Vatican II handbook, calling it the teaching of the Church.
How much more must they do in order to be held accountable by their faithful?
Of all the individuals and organizations named in this article, by far the most disgusting is the Society of St. Pius X. That they prowl about the world in traditional garb makes them all the more dangerous. May God prevent the ruin of the souls in their care.
