Editor, The Daily Catholic
The obvious and documented deviation from the Catholic Faith by Karol Wojtyla as a young priest
With the revelations from the Zenit article, one can better understand why Karol Wojtyla has been so malleable to being manipulated by Rabbis, Alexii II, and the UN, not to mention every world religion in his point-of-no-return ecumaniacal bent to transform the True Church of Christ into just another religion on an equal footing with all other religions. Before Vatican II, it was a sin to take part in non-Catholic services. Guess what! It still is! But that is the price of abandoning even one iota of the True Faith in order to please men, rather than God.
The brazenness with which the conciliar church is dropping the mask is amazing. I reference the Zenit report (ZE05011807) from January 18, 2005 - ironically the Feast of St. Peter's Chair at Rome - in which Zenit, unbeknownst to them I'm sure, have indicted John Paul II as not worthy of the Chair of Peter. We could have told them that just from his actions over the last decade, but this one tops it for the Zenit article...well, let me provide you their words:
As a priest, Karol Wojtyla refused to baptize a Jewish child who had been entrusted to a Catholic family in Nazi-occupied Poland, out of respect for the youngster's religious identity.
Yes, you read right. Now consider another Jewish child - Edgardo Mortara whom Pope Pius IX took into the Vatican because he had been baptized. Mortara became a priest. Ah, the fruits of baptism. The Zenit article continues:
Shachne Berger was 2 years old in the fall of 1942, when his parents Moses and Helen Hiller, of Krakow, entrusted him to a Catholic couple with no children, who lived in the German section of the city of Dombrowa.
"They were called Yachowitch and were close friends of my parents," Berger told the Italian newspaper Il Corriere della Sera today.
When the Nazis invaded the Krakow ghetto on Oct. 28, the Hillers decided to act.
"On November 15, my mother succeeded in getting me out of the ghetto and handing me over to her Christian friends together with two large bags," Berger said. "One contained all her valuable objects and the other, three letters."
The first letter was addressed to the Yachowitches, to whom the child was being entrusted, asking them to educate him as a Jew and to return him to his people should his parents die, according to the newspaper.
The second letter was addressed to Shachne himself. It explained that it was profound love that made his father and mother place him with strangers to save him, and they revealed his origins, hoping that he would grow up proud of being Jewish.
The third contained the testament of Reizel Wurtzel, Helen's mother, addressed to her sister-in-law, Jenny Berger, in Washington, D.C.
"Our grandson Shachne Hiller, born on the 18th of the month of Ab [the 11th month of the Jewish calendar], the 22nd of August of 1940, has been entrusted to courageous persons," the third letter reads. "If none of us returns, I beg you to keep him with you, and that you educate him correctly. This is my last will."
There is no specific instruction that the boy must be raised Jewish and not be baptized; rather "that you educate him correctly." The correct way as another Jew stated infallibly two millennia ago was recorded for all the world to see, hear and act upon. Let me remind you what that Jew said: "Going, therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Matthew 28: 19-20) and "Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not, shall be condemned" (Mark 16: 15-16).
Keep that in mind as we read further in Zenit:
Before taking leave of the Yachowitches, Helen gave them the names and addresses of relatives -- the Aarons and Bergers -- who lived in Montreal and Washington.
"If we don't return when this madness is over," she requested her friend, "send them these letters."
Shachne's mother's precautions became a reality: In March 1943, the Krakow ghetto was liquidated and the child's parents were deported to Auschwitz, from where they never returned.
The boy, however, was not out of danger.
"From 1942 to 1945 we were always fleeing, from one house to another, and from one city to a new place," Berger recalled. "Many hostile and anti-Semitic Poles were suspicious of my looks and thought I was a Jew, and if they had reported us, my adoptive parents would have risked death."
By the time the war ended, the Yachowitches had grown fond of Shachne, and his "adoptive mother," forgetting her promise to Helen Hiller, wanted to adopt the child officially. Wishing to baptize him, she approached a young priest of her parish and told him the story of the boy, his identity, and what happened to his parents.
The priest asked Mrs. Yachowitch what had been the wish of the child's parents when they entrusted him to her. When she revealed the content of the will, the priest, Karol Wojtyla, the future John Paul II, refused to baptize Shachne.
Did you get that? "Karol Wojtyla, the future John Paul II, refused to baptize Shachne"!!! The parents had died, the boy's parents were in effect the Yachowitches who were loyal Catholics. Regardless of the parents' wish, as Catholic sponsors the Yaschowitches had a moral duty to take care of young Shachne Berger, body, mind and soul. How could they take care of the soul without baptism? Secondly, even given the fact of the letter from his real parents, within a few years he could have made up his own mind when he reached the age of reason. Had the Yaschowitches been counseled by Wojtyla to catechise Berger in the Faith and mold him through prayer that God's will be done, that he would baptize the boy when he was ready. But that evidently didn't cross his mind nor did that pastoral duty seem to matter to Wojtyla. Neither did Our Lord's words above mean anything; rather he sought to placate a religion that had been replaced by Christ Himself. Wojtyla sought to recognize a religion that did not accept Christ or baptism. Why? A good question that, the more one reads his biography, realizes he has sought to please man rather than God. Consider what the Apostle Paul says in Galatians 1: 6-10,
"I wonder that you are so soon removed, from him who called you to the grace of Christ, to another Gospel: Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the Gospel of Christ. But though we, or an Angel from Heaven, preach a gospel to you beside that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so I say now again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? If I did yet please men, I should not be a servant of Christ."
Now consider carefully the Apostle's words and ask yourself if Karol Wojtyla with his ecumaniacal syncretism and humanism has not preached throughout his life another Gospel, one that has no semblance of what was always taught through 260 Popes. Vatican Two-speak and all its ambiguity resembles very little Catholic-speak. In fact, if you read the V2 documents and all the bafflegab that has followed and compare it to past papal decrees and documents, you'll see there is very little identification to each other. In fact the architects of Vatican Two counted on that ambiguity to further their agenda of undermining Holy Mother Church. It is a fact that Wojtyla was greatly influenced by heretical theologians. It is a fact that Wojtyla condoned what previous Roman Pontiffs had condemned, and went so far as to personally participate in non-Catholic religious services which prior to Vatican II was a sin, a grave sin depending on the scandal and harm done. Considering the great scandal JP2 has caused in kissing the Koran, recognizing a snake as a god, patronizing the Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Lutherans, schismatic Orthodox and new age sects, turning sacred Catholic shrines and churches into pagan shrines - either at Assisi or Fatima - and the price of his betrayal of the Saints, Pontiffs and Doctors of the Church, not to mention Our Lord and His Blessed Mother, then I think one would have to agree the scandal he has caused is commensurate with the gravest of sins.
Returning to his refusal to baptize a child at the request of his sponsors it shows also that by Wojtyla's refusal he was denying the thrice-proclaimed dogma Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus and by denying dogma, definitely "deviating from the Faith." I say that because there have been those who will agree with all the arguments against Wojtyla but always end with a "yes, but..." Well, this time I don't think anyone has a "yes, but..." to answer this obvious betrayal of the Faith. And to put the exclamation mark on the grievousness and ultimate result of his act back in the late 40's is the very fact that Pope Paul IV quite possibly had these times in mind prophetically when he issued his Papal decree Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio. In it, which has the full force of being enforced for all time - his rock-solid words that it must be held "in perpetuity" means no one can abrogate his words just as St. Pius V decreed that his Quo Primum must be heeded "in perpetuity." Ergo, when we read what Paul IV wrote, we can see clearly that he was referring to just such a scenario as we have seen over the past 40 years. The decree is in blue and emphasis is added by the editor.
1. In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind [i.e. error in respect of the Faith] is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff,who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fullness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith. Remembering also that, where danger is greater, it must more fully and more diligently be counteracted, We have been concerned lest false prophets or others, even if they have only secular jurisdiction, should wretchedly ensnare the souls of the simple, and drag with them into perdition, destruction and damnation countless peoples committed to their care and rule, either in spiritual or in temporal matters; and We have been concerned also lest it may befall Us to see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, in the holy place. In view of this, Our desire has been to fulfil our Pastoral duty, insofar as, with the help of God, We are able, so as to arrest the foxes who are occupying themselves in the destruction of the vineyard of the Lord and to keep the wolves from the sheepfolds, lest We seem to be dumb watchdogs that cannot bark and lest We perish with the wicked husbandman and be compared with the hireling.
In respect of each and every sentence of excommunication, suspension, interdict and privation and any other sentences, censures and penalties against heretics or schismatics, enforced and promulgated in any way whatsoever by any of Our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs, or by any who were held to be such (even by their "litterae extravagantes" i.e. private letters), or by the sacred Councils received by the Church of God, or by decrees of the Holy Fathers and the statutes, or by the sacred Canons and the Constitutions and Apostolic Ordinations - all these measures, by Apostolic authority, We approve and renew, that they may and must be observed in perpetuity and, if perchance they be no longer in lively observance, that they be restored to it.
Thus We will and decree that the aforementioned sentences, censures and penalties be incurred without exception by all members of the following categories:
(i) Anysoever who, before this date, shall have been detected to have deviated from the Catholic Faith, or fallen into any heresy, or incurred schism, or provoked or committed either or both of these, or who have confessed to have done any of these things, or who have been convicted of having done any of these things.
(ii) Anysoever who (which may God, in His clemency and goodness to all, deign to avert) shall in the future so deviate or fall into heresy, or incur schism, or shall provoke or commit either or both of these.
(iii) Anysoever who shall be detected to have so deviated, fallen, incurred, provoked or committed, or who shall confess to have done any of these things, or who shall be convicted of having done any of these things.
With the publication of this news, if Wojtyla does not firmly deny that it happened as Zenit has written it, then it shall be held as a confession of deviation from the Faith and he shall have confessed to having done what Zenit reports, thus falling into the very category which Paul IV speaks of.
Taking that syllogism further, we read Paul IV's deduction:
6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:
(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;
(iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;
(v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;
(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.
Those are such powerful, clear orders which the Holy Father consigned to every person for perpetuity. Note how this Papal Decree indicts not only Karol Wojtyla, but all the bishops he appointed, as well as those who participated and carried out the deviation from the Catholic Faith wrought by the reforms and schemas of Vatican II. In effect, while all are waiting for a new pope, waiting for God to settle this whole crisis, the 223rd Successor of Peter had already made provisions for such. By his decree, we can clearly see the status of Karol Wojtyla and all those who have deviated from the Catholic Faith by embracing a synthetic, syncretic man-made Masonic-Protestant rite that has no authority whatsoever per the Pope's decree that must be observed and ruled upon in perpetuity. Thus, all that has been perpetrated on the Faithful since Vatican II has no force of obedience whatsoever; something Traditional Catholics have long realized, but now it's high time those blindly bound to the "abomination of desolation" Novus Ordo must realize and flee from.
We shall now complete for you the Zenit story of January 18:
Shachne then left for North America, where his maternal relatives received him. Legal issues made his living with the Bergers difficult. On Dec. 19, 1950, after Jenny Berger's efforts, U.S. President Harry Truman signed a special decree that entrusted Shachne Hiller to the Bergers.
Jenny Berger recalled: "More than eight years had passed since my grandmother wrote the will in the Krakow ghetto. At last, her wish was realized."
In October 1978 Mrs. Yachowitch, with whom Shachne -- now a practicing Jew, married, and father of twins -- had kept in touch by letter, told him the last details of his story.
"For the first time," he said, "she revealed that she had tried to baptize me and educate me as a Catholic, but that she had been stopped by a young priest, future cardinal of Krakow, Karol Wojtyla, recently elected Pope."
There you have it, Karol Wojtyla refused to obey Christ's command and baptize an orphan. Was young Berger not in jeopardy of losing eternal life? Was young Berger not included in "preach to everyone" or part of "every nation" as Our Lord charged? The subhead says it all "As a young priest, he [Wojtyla] respected identity of Jewish Child" while, we might add from what Catholic Truth teaches, disrespecting the identity of the Christ Child and Our Lord's command to baptize all in order to be saved. Holy Mother Church has always been against forced conversions and rightfully so for man has a free will, however young Berger was still a child who had not reached the age of reason when Mrs. Yachowitch sought his salvation by seeking to have him baptized for the sake of Shachne's own soul. But the one who could have brought young Berger out of the the curse of Original Sin and be born of the Holy Ghost by water and eligible for eternal life, denied him that opportunity and to this day Berger has not been baptized.
At the very least Wojtyla failed miserably in not properly counseling Mrs. Yachowitch as to what she should have done. Consider that the parents were dead. They had died for their faith at Auschwitz, but Mrs. Yachowitch knew better, or at least should have been guided by a Catholic priest, that to be saved the child needed to be baptized. To die for one's faith means nothing if one is not baptized. Remember Our Lord's words: "they who are not, will be condemned." Even if there had to be a period of catechumenization for young Shachne's age consideration, there should have been offered the hope of his eventual baptism. Otherwise, why even be Catholic!? But the whole thing was turned into a geo-political affair as Wojtyla is still wont to do today, being even more led by the nose by the Jewish authorities who seem to be the puppeteers of today's pope. Such is the Jewish influence on society today and on the Pole Wojtyla who would rather defy and deny Christ than offend the sensitivities of the Jews.
An interesting side note to this is that it was Paul IV who issued an edict for the Jews to live in the ghettos because heresy was so rampant and to preserve the Faith from compromise they had to be under watch in order not to contaminate Catholics who had been thrown into the vortex of confusion from the Protestant Reformation. Jews were spreading heresies and errors and, other than imprisonment or exile from the country, Paul IV had no choice but to curtail their errors. With Wojtyla we have the opposite where the only ones today who are looked down upon are Traditional Catholics who seek to live and preserve all that has been taught and handed down through the Truths and Traditions of Holy Mother Church.
To those who still doubt the validity of Paul IV's edict, I leave them with these words by His Holiness:
No one at all, therefore, may infringe this document of our approbation, re-introduction, sanction, statute and derogation of wills and decrees, or by rash presumption contradict it. If anyone, however, should presume to attempt this, let him know that he is destined to incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul.
Given in Rome at Saint Peter's in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 1559, 15th February, in the fourth year of our Pontificate.
+ I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church of Rome
First of all, we encourage you to read the full Papal Bull for it is quite brief and to the point, unlike the long, tedious, ambiguous, compromising volumes produced by Modern Rome that drone on and on without actually saying anything concrete but leaving everything in the state of relativity; a dead give-away of a Masonic bent. Secondly, the evidence is overwhelming that Karol Wojtyla before he became pope, even before he was made a cardinal, was spouting heretical ideas that are harmful to souls. How harmful? Well, look at the devastation that has been wrought over the past quarter of a century! Again: "By their fruits you shall know them" (Matthew 7: 20). When one truly looks into who influenced Wojtyla, one is shocked. It was not the holy saints, nor Doctors of the Church, nor Pope Leo XIII or St. Pius X, not even Benedict XV or Pius XI - definitely not the latter. Nor was it Pius XII for Papa Pacelli was watching Wojtyla carefully, very carefully. Why? Because the Holy Father suspected the Polish prelate of heresy back in the 50's, just as he was suspicious of the same harm of souls by Angelo Roncalli and Giovanni Montini. Though Pius tried to offset the chess moves by the modernists by keeping these dangerous men in check, the devil knows the game well and Pius ran out of time. That left the board open for checkmate and the very men whom Pius feared were given carte blanche to spread their heresies. The reason: the conciliar 'popes' were shaped by heretics like Tielhard du Chardin and Karl Rahner, even Martin Luther and Karl Marx. The saboteurs were inside the Trojan horse. The barbarian was at the gate and everyone looked the other way as the "good Pope John" dazzled the world, allowing these infiltrators to cross the threshold.
To seal the deal, if you will in the indictment of Karol Wojtyla who has waltzed around so many Catholic truths in order to accommodate man and the globalization of man, we cite the holy Cardinal and Doctor of the Church St. Robert Bellarmine who wrote in his Second Book, Chapter 29 of De Romano Pontifice the following:
"Just as it is lawful to resist the Pope that attacks the body, it is also lawful to resist the one who attacks souls or who disturbs civil order, or above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is lawful to resist by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed."
This saintly Jesuit went even further in exhausting this argument with his Opinions and on that we must rely on what he took as the ultimate answer. He took the Fifth; the Fifth Opinion that is. He based this after thoroughly exhausting various arguments and opinions by leading theologians. Bellarmine deduced in the next chapter (30) of De Romano Pontifice the following:
"The fifth opinion therefore is the true one. A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."
In citing the findings of Church Fathers Cyprian, Driedonus and Melchior Cano this defender and promoter of Trent concluded what they and Holy Mother Church firmly teaches: that a Sovereign Pontiff who becomes a manifest heretic AUTOMATICALLY loses his office and jurisdiction. The same holds true for cardinals, bishops, even priests.
As if this is not enough proof of the stance faithful Catholics not only should, but must take if they are truly in concert with Holy Mother Church, we have the findings of more sage saints, such as St. Vincent de Lerins who stated in his Commonitorium way back in the third century:
"What then should a Catholic do if some part of the Church were to
separate itself from communion with the universal Faith? What other
choice can he make but to prefer to the gangrenous and corrupted
member the whole of the body that is sound. And if some new contagion
were to try to poison no longer a small part of the Church, but all of
the Church at the same time, then he will take the greatest care to
attach himself to antiquity which, obviously, can no longer be seduced
by any lying novelty."
In one of his sermons, Pope Innocent III laid out the grave responsibility of the Sovereign Pontiff:
"The pope should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he
rashly glory in his honor and high estate, because the less he is judged by
man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff
glory, because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already
judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy, because he who does
not believe is already judged. In such a case it should be said of him: 'If
salt should lose its savor, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and
trampled under foot by men'."
The Angelic Doctor St. Thomas Aquinas put it quite succinctly in his Summa Theologiae, IIa IIae, Q. 33, A.
"Hold firmly that your faith is identical with that of the ancients.
Deny this, and you dissolve the unity of the Church."
Two more Doctors of the Church weighed in on this vital issue. St. Francis de Sales stated in A Catholic Controversy in 1596:
"Now when [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto
from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either
deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic
In his Verita della
Fede, Part III, Chapter VIII: 9-10, St. Alphonsus Liguori left an omen that - we can only believe from what we see today - has emerged:
"If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he
would at once fall from the pontificate. If, however, God were to permit a
pope to become a notoriously and contumacious heretic, he would by such fact
cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant."
"the apostolic chair would be vacant." Note St. Alphonsus does not say that the gates of hell would prevail, for indeed they cannot, but he does conclude that a pope who has become a notorious heretic cannot be the Sovereign Pontiff. Since we know from his actions that John Paul II has caused grave scandal on his watch, been responsible for changing the constituted evangelic traditions and promoted sins against the First Commandment, he has to be a manifest heretic. Ergo, we can no longer rely on the man the world has embraced because he is one of them for he has catered to mammon. Now in the late, late autumn of his life as a perpetual winter settles in, he is being cast back by the very agents of mammon who once embraced him. He is, in truth, a pathetic figure whose legacy will not be what he had hoped to forge. We do not pass judgment on the man for he already has passed judgment on himself and the Church has spoken long before this crisis ever rose its ugly head. The offenders have implicated themselves and excommunicated themselves for the True Church founded by Christ. Pray he and those who have followed him in error will repent and return to the fold of the Roman Catholic Church for, as the holy Apostle of Tradition and Doctor of the Church St. Athanasius declared,
We have the words of previous reliable Pontiffs who said even if a prelate or pope would speak 98% Catholic truth, to deviate one iota from the truth would render him in error and since a true successor cannot preach error for Christ will not allow him to; just as Christ "cannot deceive nor be deceived" as we pray each day in the Act of Faith so also to err in even the smallest way, deviates from the Faith. Unfortunately, the conciliar church has provided all kinds of landmines that threaten the True Church. As St. Benedict Center wrote, "The destruction of the One True Church is the primary goal of the modernists. Christ gave this Church authority over all men; that authority is clearly proclaimed in the critical dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. That is why the modernists aim to destroy it. In that treasonous effort, they have been given great aid and comfort by the new Catechism of the Catholic Church. Look at any teaching in this catechism which relates to the Church's defined dogma on salvation, and there you will find the arsenic of heresy."
With all this laid out by the infallible, perennial Magisterium of the Church we have a choice. We can choose to ignore the wisdom and guidance of 260 Popes, the Apostles, Doctors and Fathers of the Church and countless saints in the great Communion of Saints and if we do, then we must reject the conciliar church and their total lack of fruits (cf. Matthew 7: 15-20). If we choose to recognize the conciliar church, then we are in effect rejecting and denying what was taught and handed down for the sake of saving souls from Peter through Pius XII. You can't have both. It's one or the other. As a Traditional Catholic loyal to Christ and His Church I must stand with the True Church. If only Karol Wojtyla had.
Michael Cain, editor
For past HOT ISSUES commentaries, see 2005hot.htm Archives