As part of the answer to the question, “Can a true Pope teach that the Muslims worship God?” based on legitimate Catholic teaching, please read what Pope Paul IV providentially wrote over 400 years ago that pertains to this urgent and grave question today:
“We, considering these same things to be very grave and dangerous, that the Roman Pontiff, who rules the offices of God and our Lord Jesus Christ on earth and who holds the fullness of power over kingdoms and kings, and who judges all, and by no one at this time is judged, must, if found deviating from the faith, be confuted, and that, where the greater the danger is intended, there it must be more fully and diligently reflected, lest pseudo prophets and others even having secular jurisdiction should wretchedly entrap simple souls and thereby drag innumerable peoples who are committed to their care and rule in spiritual and temporal matters with them into perdition and the ruin of eternal damnation…” (Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, February 15, 1559)
For the purpose of proving the assertion that John Paul II was not the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church and that Benedict XVI is not the current Pope, this paper will show that John Paul II taught, and Benedict XVI teaches that the Muslims worship God, even though the Muslims do not believe that Jesus Christ is God. However, the Catholic faith (or the Catholic doctrine) teaches that one must believe in Jesus Christ being God in order to believe in or worship God. Thus, J.P. II held, and Benedict XVI holds at least one belief that conflicts with the Catholic faith, since J. P. II taught and Benedict XVI teaches that the Muslims worship God. Those who persistently hold a belief or beliefs that are contrary to the Catholic faith are heretics. Therefore, John Paul II was a heretic, and Benedict XVI is a heretic, and heretics are not part of the Church. Thus, J.P. II was not and Benedict XVI is not part of the Church, as a pope must be part of the Church in order to be its head. Therefore, J.P. II was not and Benedict XVI is not the Pope (Pontiff of Rome). Moreover, Pope Pius IX declared at the First Vatican Council (1870), that “the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.”
So, if J.P. II (Karol Wojtila) was a heretic before his alleged election to the office of Roman Pontiff (Pope) in 1978 and Benedict XVI (Ratzinger) was a heretic before his alleged election to the office of Pope in 2005, then they were not a part of the Roman Catholic Church before their alleged elections. In addition, since one must necessarily be a part of something in order to be the head of something, one must also necessarily be a part of the Roman Catholic Church in order to be the Pope. Yet in 1965, Wojtila and Ratzinger professed to believe the following Vatican II (Nostra Aetate) doctrine that they signed: “The Church has also high esteem for the Muslims. They worship God, who is one, living and subsistent, merciful and almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth... Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. ” Then, J.P. II (1992) continues to unite Vatican II Catholics in denying Jesus before the Muslims by approving with Ratzinger a new catechism, The Catechism of the Catholic Church, in paragraph 841: “The plan of salvation also includes … the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.” Yet true Catholics heed these words of Jesus: “But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven (St. Matthew 10:33).”
In addition, this Vatican II doctrine is contrary to the Catholic dogma defined by Pope Sixtus III at the Council of Ephesus, July 31, 432: “5. If anyone dares to say that Christ was a God-bearing man and not rather God in truth, being by nature one Son, even as ‘the Word became flesh’, and is made partaker of blood and flesh precisely like us, let him be anathema.” Therefore, the Vatican II and new catechism doctrine -- that the Muslims worship God -- is a heresy, because the Muslims do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as God, but only as a prophet or God-bearing man. Therefore, since a heretic is a person who after baptism obstinately professes belief in a heresy, or obstinately denies a Catholic dogma, J.P. II was, and Benedict XVI is a heretic.
Moreover, Pope Leo XIII declared in his encyclical 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.” Furthermore, according to the 1917 Code of Canon Law, c. 2314.1: “All apostates from the Christian faith, and all heretics and schismatics: (1) are ipso facto excommunicated... ”
Additionally, the proposition which teaches that it is necessary, according to the natural and divine laws, for either excommunication or for suspension, that a personal examination should precede, and that, therefore, sentences called “ipso facto” have no other force than that of a serious threat without any actual effect: this was condemned by Pope Pius VI in the Errors of the Synod of Pistoia as false, rash, pernicious, injurious to the power of the Church, erroneous. Thus, Wojtila and Ratzinger were automatically excommunicated from the Catholic Church without the need of a personal examination, since at least 1965. Thus, Wojtila was not, and Ratzinger is not the Pope either, since the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church, and one cannot be the head of the Church if one is cut off from or alien to it as they have demonstrated by their heretical teaching. Next, I will consider the opposing argument, which claims the legitimacy of John Paul II and Benedict XVI as true Popes:
According to the opposing argument that Wojtila was and Ratzinger now is the Pope, J.P. II was and Benedict XVI is now almost universally recognized as the Pope, and they were elected by the majority of cardinals. In addition, many claim that they were only material heretics and not formal heretics, which means that they were still Catholics, and therefore were eligible to become popes. Moreover, we must wait for a future Pope to judge them, since the Pope has no superior except God. Thus, no one else can judge them. Furthermore, the doctrine of perpetual papal succession teaches that the Catholic Church has a perpetual succession of popes. Therefore, the Holy See of St. Peter cannot be vacant indefinitely, especially for over a quarter of a century. Therefore, J.P. II was and Benedict XVI is the Pope, since J.P. II occupied and Benedict XVI occupies the Chair and Holy See of St. Peter.
Now, I will answer the prior objections to my assertion that John Paul II and Benedict XVI were and are not legitimate Roman Pontiffs by giving the following counter arguments:
Concerning the fact that J.P. II was and Benedict XVI is almost universally recognized as the Pope of the Catholic Church, the following objection may be made to their being popes in fact: Our Lord Jesus Christ, the divine founder of the Catholic Church, told us in His Holy Gospels that we should beware of wolves in sheep's clothing and that we would know them by their fruits; or, in other words, to beware of false prophets. J.P. II was and Benedict XVI is a false prophet, since by their teaching the heresy that the Muslims worship God, we know them for whom they are.
A point may be made that the doctrine of perpetual papal succession teaches that the Catholic Church has a perpetual succession of popes. Therefore, the Holy See of St. Peter cannot be vacant, especially for such a long period of time. However, according to the papal bull of Pope Paul IV, Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio (1559), of which you will find an excerpt near the end of this paper, an invalid pope could be even unanimously elected by all the cardinals, if the pope elect had deviated from the faith (Catholic doctrine) prior to his election. Thus, an alleged pope could illegitimately occupy the office of Pope “for an extended period of time of the length of whatever time in the future (Pope Paul IV),” and since the overwhelming majority of the people in the world would be unaware of the invalid election, as most people consider the cardinals to be the experts in Catholic teaching under the Pope. Furthermore, if the election was completed with the unanimous consent of all the Cardinals, then it is evident that there would be no Cardinals available to seriously consider the necessity of electing a true Pope, which would invariably lead to the Church being without a true Pope for an extended period of time of whatever length. However, there may be a true Pope somewhere, though not yet known.
Many others believe these alleged popes to be material heretics and not formal heretics, which means that they were still Catholic and thus true Popes. Yet, Pope Paul IV, Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio (1559), teaches that if a heretic (or one who deviated from the faith) is elected Pope, the election is completely null and void, and cannot be validated in any way. However, the term material heretic is deceiving because a material heretic is only a mistaken Catholic, who does not yet know the Catholic teaching regarding a certain doctrine, but is willing to correct one's error once informed of the true doctrine; whereas, a formal heretic is a real heretic who knowingly and obstinately denies or doubts a Catholic dogma or infallible doctrine. J.P. II and Benedict XVI could not have been only material heretics, since it is part of the duty of a Catholic bishop and cardinal to know Catholic doctrine, and especially the dogma that Jesus Christ is both true God and true man—as well as the divine mystery of the one true God, the Most Holy Trinity, which the Muslims blaspheme. Thus, they must have been and are formal or real heretics. In addition, every Catholic should know the necessity of believing that Jesus Christ is God in order to worship Him, and that this belief can never be persistently denied after baptism without committing a grave sin against the faith, and thus ceasing one to be a Catholic.
Many also claim that the Catholic Church must be visible. Therefore, since there was no other church claiming to be Catholic that was as visible as the church that J.P. II was the head of, he must be the Pope. However, this does not prove that he was a true pope of the true Catholic Church. Furthermore, the Catholic Church is always visible, since its members (including a possible true pope), even if only few in number, are visible -- though maybe not visible to the vast majority of the world.
One may also claim that the Muslims worship a being that they believe to be God, or that they worship God although they do not realize that Jesus Christ is God. Therefore, it is not a heresy to say that the Muslims worship God. Nevertheless, no matter how sincere this claim or belief may be, it is not a Catholic belief, and in order to prove this point we should give attention to the following words of St. Thomas Aquinas, one of the Catholic Church's greatest theologians regarding this matter: “Now man is more than ever separated from God by unbelief, because he has not even true knowledge of God: and by false knowledge of God, man does not approach Him, but is severed from Him. Nor is it possible for one who has a false opinion of God, to know Him in any way at all, because the object of his opinion is not God. (Summa Theologica II-II, 10, 3) ” Thus, the Muslims do not worship God, since their false opinion or false knowledge of God makes it impossible for them to know Him or worship Him.
Finally, it is also been said that we must wait for a future pope to judge him, since he has no superior except God. Thus, no one else can judge him. However, an objection may be made as it is clearly enunciated in Pope Leo XIII's Apostolicae Curae, in which the Holy Father laid down that only God judges what remains internal, while men judge externals. Thus, we may judge J.P. II's and Benedict XVI's words and actions, which are external. Moreover, according to Pope Innocent III (1198) in his Sermon 4: “The Roman Pontiff has no superior but God. Who, therefore (should a pope ‘lose his savor’) could cast him out or trample him under foot—since of the pope it is said ‘gather thy flock into thy fold’? Truly, he 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.”
Pope Paul IV again speaks to us with his powerful and providential words in order to settle this important and grave matter concerning the salvation of souls, as we read the following excerpt of his papal bull, Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio:
“Adding that if at any time it will be found that some bishop, even conducting himself as an archbishop or patriarch or already mentioned cardinal of the Roman Church...or even a Roman Pontiff, before his promotion or assumption as cardinal or as Roman Pontiff had deviated from the Catholic faith or fallen into some heresy, before his promotion or assumption as Cardinal or as Roman Pontiff, that promotion or assumption concerning him, even if made in concord and from the unanimous assent of all the cardinals, is null, void and worthless; not by the reception of consecration, not by the ensuing possession of the office and administration, or as if, either the enthronement or homage of the Roman Pontiff, or the obedience given to him by all, and the length of whatever time in the future, can be said to have recovered power or to be able to recover power, nor can (the assumption or promotion) be considered as legitimate in any part of it, and for those who are promoted as bishops or archbishops or patriarchs or assumed as primates, or as cardinals or even as Roman Pontiff, no faculty of administration in spiritual or temporal matters may be thought to have been attributed or to attribute, but may all things and each thing in any way said, done, effected and administered and then followed up in any way through them lack power and they are not able to attribute any further power nor right to anyone; and they themselves who are thus promoted and assumed by that very fact, without any further declaration to be made, are deprived of every dignity, place, honor, title, authority, function and power...”
“It is fit to subject persons, both to secular priests and to priests that are members of a religious order as well as to laymen and also to cardinals, even to those who by the election of this pontiff formerly deviated from the faith or who will have been heretics or schismatics in the interim, or who will have conspired with others and will have manifested obedience to him, and will have honored him,…to retire with impunity at anytime from obedience and devotion of those thus promoted or assumed and to avoid them as warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs... Therefore, it is permitted to no one to impair this page of Our approval, renewal, sanction, statute, wills of repeal, of decrees, or to go contrary to it by a rash daring deed. If anyone moreover will have presumed to attempt this, he will incur the wrath of `Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”
In addendum, Pope St. Pius X (Pasendi,1907) warns us of sacrilegious reformers: “We allude, Venerable Brethren, to many who belong to the Catholic laity, nay, and this is far more lamentable, to the ranks of the priesthood itself, who, feigning a love for the Church, lacking the firm protection of philosophy and theology, nay more, thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church, and lost to all sense of modesty, vaunt themselves as reformers of the Church; and, forming more boldly into line of attack, assail all that is most sacred in the work of Christ, not sparing even the person of the Divine Redeemer, whom, with sacrilegious daring, they reduce to a simple, mere man.” The authors of Vatican II and its new catechism teach that Jesus Christ is God and man; however, they also falsely teach that the Muslims worship God, even though the Muslims only believe Jesus Christ was a mere man. This latter teaching is blasphemy and a heresy. So, St. Pius X (1907) also warns us of Modernism as “the synthesis of all heresies” and the cunning deceit and conduct of the Modernists: “In their writings and addresses they seem not infrequently to advocate doctrines which are contrary one to the other, so that one would be disposed to regard their attitude as double and doubtful. But this is done deliberately and advisedly…”
Pope Pius XII (Meminisse Iuvat,1958): “And He who does not have the Church as his mother, cannot have God as his father. . . He who does not uphold this unity does not uphold the law of God, does not uphold the faith of the Father and the Son, and has neither life nor salvation.” Thus, the Muslim claim to worship God the Father is again refuted.
Moreover, Pope Eugenius IV(Ecumenical Council of Florence, 1439) infallibly declared: “The catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity, neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.” … It is also necessary for salvation to believe faithfully the incarnation of our lord Jesus Christ. The right faith, therefore, is that we believe and confess that our lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, is God and man. …This is the catholic faith. Unless a person believes it faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.” (excerpt from the Athanasian Creed) This Creed was taken out of the Divine Office after Vatican II, as it apparently does not fit the new false doctrines.
Also in accordance with the heretical Vatican II, the New American Bible was published in 1970. The Preface to the New American Bible heretically states: The collaboration of scholars who are not Catholic fulfills the directive of the Second Vatican Council, not only that “correct translations be made into different languages especially from the original texts of the sacred books,” but that, “with the approval of the church authority, these translations be produced in cooperation with separated brothers” so that “all Christians may be able to use them.”
Therefore, the following verse referring to the unity of the three persons of God was left out of the New American Bible:
“And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.” (I St. John 5:7, Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible)
In closing, may God grant us prudent and zealous legitimate Catholic pastors. Pope Pius VI (1775) exhorts:
Our great predecessor Gregory…said with his usual excellence: “Often imprudent guides in their fear of losing human favor are afraid to speak the right freely. As the word of truth has it, they guard their flock not with a shepherd’s zeal but as hirelings do, since they flee when the wolf approaches by hiding themselves in silence.... A shepherd fearing to speak the right is simply a man retreating by keeping silent.”