Based on the Writings of Father Luigi Villa, Th.D
and Dr.  Franco Adessa
Compiled and Integrated by Pauly Fongemie


The Beatification of John Paul II

The "Theology" of John Paul II

As was Paul VI, John Paul II favored the modernist "New Theology".

The ecumenical organization for Assisi was already present in the texts of Wojtyla when he was still a professor, Bishop and Cardinal, AS IT WOULD BE IN DOCUMENTS HE WROTE AS POPE.

The key to understanding the error in the theology of John Paul is found in his fundamental orientation on salvation:

In "Sign of Contradicton", Milan 1977, ch. 11, he wrote, Christ died for all men and therefore every man is saved "whether he knows it or not, whether he excepts it or not by means of faith." This is more than a sign of contradiction, it is a contradiction, a repudiation of Catholic dogma, period!

What is the "New Theology"?

The theme that permeates every tenet is that experience and human sentiment ought to be influential in dogma. Whatever else may be said of it, it is decidedly not Catholic!

While the "New Theology" has its roots before the turn of the last century, mainly within certain Jesuit circles, there are three clergymen of this tribe who were instrumental in guiding the errors in Vatican II, which was not a dogmatic Council, but has been used by those with a liberal agenda ever since as if it were binding, dogmatic truths. To understand the mind of John Paul II, who was conflicted as was Pope Paul VI, one needs to examine these three "new theologists."

They are Fr. Teilhard de Chardin, a French Jesuit, heretic, apostate, and Freemason, who was condemned in 1962 by the Holy Office but "reinvented" by the liberal faction of Vatican II, who dubbed him "the soul of Vatican II"; the heretical Jesuit, Fr. Karl Rahner, who was hailed "the mind of Vatican II"; and Fr. Urs von Balthasar, the father of Neo-Modernism, who praised "the genius of Luther". We will look briefly at each one all of whom influenced John Paul II who arrived at Modernism through this "New Theology", the end result of which is universal salvation, with Christ a secondary figure:

Teilhard de Chardin
We will quote from his writings as citede by Father Villa in Chiesa, September 2010 issue:

"Rome and I have two different conceptions of the world. Sometimes  have a real and true hatred towards everything that represents the historical and natural institution of Christ today."

"A religion of the earth is being formed now, as opposed to the religion of heaven."

"If, after some internal crisis, I would lose my faith in God [and] my faith in the Spirit, I feel that I would still believe the world."

"As far as I am concerned, I have no personal interest in a life hereafter."

"Do not mention the man [St. Augustine], who has spoiled everything by introducing the supernatural!"

And finally, this blasphemy:

"The Christian God up there and the progressive Marxist God are united in the figure of Christ."

As Fr. Villa points out, it is all together understandable how he came to his end, dying while having coitus with his mistress on Easter Sunday, April 10, 1955.

Karl Rahner
This so-called "mind of Vatican II" was a notorious heretic, one of his worst heresies being that concerning the Blessed Sacrament. According to Fr. Regis Scanlan, OFM, Cap., Rahner believed the following about the Eucharist:
In 1966 the late Fr. Karl Rahner stated that "One can no longer maintain
today that bread is a substance, as St. Thomas and the Fathers of the Council
(of Trent) obviously thought it was". For Rahner, the "substance" of a thing
did not include its reality, but the “meaning and purpose” of the thing. So, according to Karl Rahner, transubstantiation meant that, after the Consecration during Mass, the physical bread remained physical bread but it now had a new “meaning” of spiritual food because it was now a
"symbol" of Jesus Christ.
So, Rahner held that the Eucharist was only a “symbol.”

And from Fr. John Hardon, SJ:

"We get some idea of how deeply this error has penetrated Catholic thought, when we read what Karl Rahner writes about the Eucharistic consecration. Rahner therefore is the first of the two master teachers of profound error on the Real Presence. I will quote now from Rahner’s language, not always so clear, I chose the clearest part that I could find: 'the more recent approaches suggest the following considerations, one has to remember that the words of institution indicate a change. But not give any guiding line for the interpretation of the actual process. As regarding transubstantiation it may be said, the substance, essence, meaning and purpose of the bread are identical but the meaning of a thing can be changed without changing the matter. The meaning of the bread has been changed through the consecration something which served profane use now becomes the dwelling place and the symbol of Christ who is present and gives Himself to His own.'
In other words, the Mass is nothing more than a blessing. For example, when a priest blesses water and makes it holy water, it remains water, but its meaning has changed. There is no change in the substance of the water.

Rahner insists that “substance” is purely a term of definition, and that it is merely the definition of the Eucharistic species that has changed, not the species themselves."

To quote Flannery O’Connor, the author and Catholic apologist, "Well, if it's a symbol, to hell with it." This wit is a hallmark of hers.

For Rahner, every man was a Christian, even if he did not know it or ignored it if he did.

Such was the "mind of Vatican II".

Urs von Balthasar
It is a pious belief in the Church that when God is angry with His people, He sends them bad priests. Perhaps we can expand this a bit in Balthasar's case, for he actually was made a Cardinal of the Church, which tells us how far the disintegration and the apostasy from the top has advanced. When God is very very angry He sends us wicked Cardinals.

For this portion I am using as my source, documentation on the UNAM SANCTUM CATHOLICISM Blogspot, as Father Villa's section on this wayward Cardinal was abbreviated.
Balthasar is most known for his UnCatholic idea that we may reasonably hope that Hell may be empty and his strange doctrine that Christ was abandoned by the Father and suffered the pains of Hell on Holy Saturday. This "theology" of the "Descent" is central to all of Balthasar's thinking and actually serves as the premise upon which he will build his conclusion that we may hope for universal salvation.

UNAM SANCTUM is appalled that John Paul II and Benedict XVI found
Balthasar credible, and I agree, although I am not surprised, As a devotee of Our Lady of Fatima I know this is a punishment from God for our multiple sins of impurity and for disobeying Her regarding the Consecration of Russia.

Balthasar's Concept of Sin

 "The traditional Catholic concept of sin is that sin is understood as a privation, especially with reference to Original Sin, which is a privation of grace. St. Thomas says that every sin is a kind of privation, either of "form or order or due measure" (De malo, 2:2). St. Thomas affirms Augustine's teaching on sin as a privation of the good:

"Sin is nothing else than a bad human act. Now that an act is a human act is due to its being voluntary, as stated above, whether it be voluntary, as being elicited by the will, e.g. to will or to choose, or as being commanded by the will, e.g. the exterior actions of speech or operation. Again, a human act is evil through lacking conformity with its due measure: and conformity of measure in a thing depends on a rule, from which if that thing depart, it is incommensurate" (STh, I-II, Q. 71, art. 6).

Here we see Thomas stating that sin is an act that falls short of a standard ("due measure"); in other words, it is a lack of the good, a privation of something that ought to be, although Thomas is careful to explain that sin is not a "pure privation" (I-II, Q. 72, art. 1); in other words, to say it is a privation is not to say that sin is "nothing." Sin is "a word, deed, or desire, contrary to the eternal law" (I-II, Q. 71, art. 6),   "an act deprived of its due order"; since all creatures desire the good, truly or mistakenly, sin occurs when a lesser, perceived good is substituted in place of the eternal good. This act falls short, is defective of perfection, but is nevertheless a real act, though an act whose nature is to be sinful by defect. Thus, sin as an act willed by the sinner is certainly a reality, but it has no ontological existence, nor could it, being understood as a privation.

The Catholic Encyclopedia states:

"The act [of sin] is something positive. The sinner intends here and now to act in some determined matter, inordinately electing that particular good in defiance of God's law and the dictates of right reason. The deformity is not directly intended, nor is it involved in the act so far as this is physical, but in the act as coming from the will which has power over its acts and is capable of choosing this or that particular good contained within the scope of its adequate object, i.e. universal good".

The Catechism of the Catholic Church will also use terms that present sin as a privation; it is a "failure", a "wound" (CCC 1849), the latter of which was a popular term in antiquity and the Middle Ages to explain the concept - just as a wound or sickness is the privation of health, so sin is the privation of the good.

It stands to reason that, since a privation does not have ontological existence, it cannot be objectively separated from the subject in which that privation is found. One cannot have sickness in and of itself apart from a subject who is sick (we may have a cancer cell isolated in a test tube, but that is not sickness. Sickness does not arise until that cancer attacks a human host, who, as a person, becomes sick due to the absence of health brought about by the cancer). Similarly, we cannot isolate sins from the sinner. The way sin must be handled is to be "washed away", "blotted out" or "expiated" in the context of the restoration of the sinner himself. A piece of wood with a hole in it cannot be repaired by trying to remove the hole from the wood; the hole must be filled in the context of the wood, because a hole can only exist in something.

Balthasar's dissatisfaction with the privation theory of sin leads him to posit a real, ontological existence for sin, contrary to Augustine, Thomas, the implications of the Catechism and almost all of ancient and medieval Catholic tradition. Sin becomes an ontological reality by a sort of negative creation, in which man, by the passion and willfulness that he puts into sinning, turns sin into a positive reality. Balthasar says:

"It is possible to distinguish between the sin and the sinner... Because of the energy that man has invested in it, sin is a reality, it is not 'nothing.'" (Theo-Drama, vol. V, pp. 266, 314).

Because sin has this ontological reality, it can be abstracted from the sinner and, consequently, removed to another locus. Here Balthasar's theology of sin crosses into his soteriology. Because sin is a reality that can be separated from the sinner, it is possible to "load" it on to Christ, Who literally assumes the sins of every person in His death, but especially in His Descent:

"[Sin] has been isolated from the sinner ... separated from the sinner by the work of the Cross" (ibid., 285, 314).

Thus, because sin is able to be loaded onto Christ, Christ literally takes the sins, and the guilt, of every sinner on to Himself, and in His death and Descent, literally becomes sin, in such a real, metaphysical sense that Balthasar makes the shocking statement that the Incarnation is "suspended" while Jesus is in the tomb:

"Holy Saturday is thus a kind of suspension, as it were, of the Incarnation, whose result is given back to the hands of the Father and which the Father will renew and definitively confirm by the Easter Resurrection" ("The Descent into Hell", Spirit and Institution, Explorations in Theology, vol. IV, pp 411-412).

If all sin and all guilt and all punishment for sin has been loaded upon Christ by the Father, Who wills to actively "crush" and punish the Son as if He had sinned, then there is no more wrath or punishment left that any sinner could endure eternally. All his sins have been abstracted from him and loaded on to Christ. Conversely, if there is no wrath left for the sinner, there is no real merit left for the Saint, at least in the way traditional Catholic theology has understood it. Here, Balthasar sounds downright Lutheran in his understanding of salvation."

Ergo, the Vatican's attempt "to re-introduce Luther as a worthy friend of the Church.

And once the Church has "progressed" enough in its derogation of the irreformability of truth and its splendor, to admit someone like Balthasar to the honors of the Red Hat, explaining Kasper & Co., which would have been inexplicable and confounding prior to 1960, is as obtainable as a scientist explaining how night follows day.

Now we return to Father Villa.

The "New Theology" which John Paul was enamored with states that redemption and salvation are unconditional for all men, not only objectively, but subjectively. This alone necessarily changes ecclesiology and how the faith is taught. With this erroneous belief, neither confirmed by Scripture nor Tradition, nor Dogma, man ceases to be a poor sinner who has need of redemption obtained through faith and Baptism, and becomes a "self-deified Man! Freemasonry realized, not in the aggregate as yet, but in the groundwork being laid, as this latest and more fully advanced Modernism that reduces faith and Divine revelation to mere human sentiment, obliterates any difference between "naturalism" and "Supernatural Religion", thereby the equality of all religions.

According to Modernism, Revelation is reduced to an awareness of the intimate relationship with the God-Man, for Christanity - and in the case of the other "religions", Buddha, Mohammed, et cetera. See my article, The One World Religion - Ecco-Paganism, which is a component of our local parish in Winthrop, Maine, which is the expected culmination of the errors of the modern Papacy, in particular John Paul II; the Catholic people are so poorly catechized that they had no difficulty acclaiming that Pontiff as John Paul the Great!

As Father Villa writes, Tradition is no longer the transmission of the truths revealed by God, but a new intimate, subjective religious experience, or what the Modernists call "living Tradition."

In a speech on May 11, 1986 in Ravenna, John Paul said: "I'm traveling the world to meet people of all cultures and religions; it is because I trust in the seeds of wisdom that the Spirit inspires in the consciences of the populations; from there stems the real resource for the future of mankind in our world."

Hence it is easier to grasp how a parish priest in Winthrop, Maine, can be so deluded as to allow the poster betraying the dogma of the Faith to be put on display. [See reference to article above.] After all, he is merely following a Pope who was made a saint under standards that would never have been thought possible just a generation ago!

Throughout his travels the foundation of all his ecumenical speeches were that of the "New Theology" and not that of Catholic doctrine.

Everything was centered on man and his "internal" awareness of the supernatural, inherent and independent of faith or Baptism.

This astonishing proposal for belief went so far as to claim that it did not matter whether the person knew it or not or accepted it!

So it was not that surprising, given the context of the underlying false beliefs of Pope John Paul II, that on the 100th anniversary of the birth of the pantheist, Jesuit Teilhard de Chardin, May 12, 1981, the Secretary of State wrote: "On behalf of the Holy Father," a laudatory letter to the Rector of the Catholic Institute of Paris, raving about this Masonic
heretic, who became, in effect, the precursor of Wojtyla.

Two years later this Pontiff made a disavowal of Pope Pius XII's Humani Generis, when he "rehabilitated" the
notorious Jesuit Henri Lubac who was the Second Father of the "New Theology", by making him a Cardinal!!

This heretic was known for his infamous line: "The God of 'classical ontology' is dead, you say? It may be so; but it does not worry me overmuch."

The same thing happened repeatedly when appointments o various departments, Congregations and Commissions. The "New Theologians", like wasps, were swarming and teeming throughout the Holy See. He was in fact, the episcopal nominator of Cardinal Kasper, who is the leader against Traditional Catholic doctrine as it is necessarily related to discipline, in the 2015 Synod of the Family.

All of this rot has nothing to do with Papal infallibility:

1. The Vatican II Council and all that stems from its errors are what the two Popes, who were involved with the Council, called "pastoral", not doctrinal. Moreover, Pope Paul VI, when issuing the New Mass, stated that this New Mass of his did not involve an act of infallibility. How could it??? He was violating the dogmatic Bull, Quo Primum of Pope St. Pius V.

2. As for the Ordinary Magisterium, it is only infallible when it is in agreement with the definitive statements made by all the Popes of the past; if a subsequent teaching of a Pope contradicts Tradition, by definition of the Church Herself, it is not infallible. Catholics should disregard it.

To be faithfully Catholic, Catholics must adhere to the Popes of all time who held to Tradition and kept the universal faith, as St. Thomas rightly teaches. [S.Th. 11-11, q. 2 to 3.]

Next Page, the "Marian Doctrine" of John Paul II. Click the forward button below.

All graphic accessories on this page copyrighted by Catholic Tradition.


TRADITION-----------------MAIN PAGE----------------------PAPACY