Most Protestant sects have never objected to or denied that Baptism is a sacrament instituted by Christ. Hence it would seem that there was little reason for the post-Conciliar Church to engage in extensive revisions of this rite. Nevertheless highly significant changes were introduced which all but invalidate its usage even where form and matter are retained. I am indebted to Rev. Father Dominic Savio Radecki, C.M.R.I, for an in depth study of the changes, but to somewhat steal his thunder would start by pointing out that the documents relating to the new rite of Baptism, or as it is called “The Rite of Christian Initiation (RCIA) involves 50 pages of small print with only a single passing reference to original sin while stressing that “baptism is above all the sacrament of that faith by which men and women are incorporated into the Church, built up together in the Spirit into a house where God lives, into a holy nation and a royal priesthood. It is a sacred bond of unity linking all who have been signed by it.’ Under such circumstances the “intention” of the priest is obviously compromised. 


By way of introduction the following comments by Richard Jamison of Los Angeles are pertinent:


“It is obvious that by changing the intent of baptism from “removal of original sin” to “initiation into the Christian community” the purveyors of Vatican II “null- theology” have invalidated the sacrament. If the intent of the minister can always be questioned, the confection of the sacrament will always be questionable. A consistently questionable sacrament is no sacrament. Ergo, Conciliar Baptism is [almost certainly] consistently invalid....


A premature baby, dying in the arms of its heart broken mother, will never know the “Christian community” nor does it’s tiny soul care about the “Christian community” Its soul hungers, as do all human souls, for the presence of God Almighty. If the Baptism of Vatican II is false, it  will deny that presence to the child for all eternity. The horror of this effect is something which most of us cannot stomach, and therefore we turn way.

A sacrament confers grace, but it also instructs. What are the instructions of Conciliar Baptism? “Initiation into the Christian community” is relevant and important. “Removal of original sin” (if original sin even exists) is irrelevant and unimportant. This is the sum total of post-Conciliar Baptismal teaching. It appears that this teaching is not, strictly speaking an error, because it does not directly deny original sin, it only derogates it to the status of an irrelevancy. Nor can we say that promotion of “initiation” is an error. Initiation is seemingly just a social irrelevancy, whimsically “thrown in.”


 “Initiation into the Christian Community” is obviously irrelevant. It has no more spiritual significance than initiation into a college fraternity. So what are we to think of this non-erroneous but probably invalidating baptismal statement? Let’s identify it as “null theology.” Null-Theology skirts error by invalidating truth. It does this by presenting irrelevancies from the realms of pop-psychology, half-baked sociology, quasi-anthropology and oppressive collectivist political theory as Christian truths. Null-theology is the essence of post-Conciliar “magisterial teaching,” and Conciliar Baptism is a nearly perfect example of it.


So what is the purpose of conciliary “null-theology?” If we can discover the true “intent’ of Conciliar Baptism we will have the answer. What is the real intent of post-Conciliar Baptism? Is it to deny souls to God? No. Is it to deny original sin? No. It is nothing less than to establish the oldest of all heretical lies as truth. The true intent of post-Conciliar Baptism is simply to deny the divinity of Jesus Christ. The logic is quite simple once the false sacrament is seen as an instruction in null-theology. If original sin does not exist or is irrelevant than redemption is unnecessary. If redemption is unnecessary than the crucifixion is not a redemptive sacrifice. If there is no redemption at the crucifixion than surely Jesus Christ is not divine. He becomes simply the first leader of the “Christian community” - a sort of first century crusader for equal rights for the oppressed Hebrew minority within the Roman Empire, on a par with George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King. (It should be noted that this is exactly the way that John Paul II presented Our Lord in his 1996 Easter Sermon.)


          The reason for the denial of the divinity of Jesus Christ by the Second Vatican Council was this: The influential bishops of the Church, including John XXIII and Paul VI, believed that the “side effect,” i.e. “social progress” was the true purpose of Christianity. Further, they did not believe that the promotion of “social progress” was compatible with divine law. Therefore, they decided to stop teaching Divine Law and start teaching the quasi-divinity of human beings and human social structures. This can well be summed up by simply saying that the Bishops at the Council and subsequent to it have lost their faith.










Father Dominic Radecki, CMRI








          Let us consider what is essential for baptism in the light of reason and common sense. How can water flowing over a few inches of a baby’s skin cleanse a stain which is on the infant’s soul? Do you remember how Our Lord restored the sight to a blind man? While the man stood before Him, Christ applied a dab of clay to his eyes and commanded him to wash in the pool of Siloe. He went, he washed, and he saw.


          How was sight restored to the blind man? Did light come into those sightless eyes because of the water or the clay? No. Otherwise there would have been no more blind men in Judea. His sight was restored not because of the clay or the water but through the divine power of Christ working through the clay and water. This action can be compared to electricity acting through wires. You can’t perceive anything happening, yet something is really taking place. It is not the water or the words of baptism but the power of Christ working through these elements that gives grace to the soul and removes original sin.


          All the sacraments of the Catholic Church, including baptism, were instituted by Our Lord Jesus Christ. He is the Author of the sacraments. The Son of God, who cured the sick and transformed water into wine, continues to exercise His divine power through the sacraments.










          In order to have a glass of orange juice, you must first have oranges. Oranges are essential to orange juice. If you have a glass of juice that is made from another substance, it is really juice, but it cannot be orange juice. The Catholic Church teaches that there are four essential elements in every sacrament: valid matter, valid form, valid minister, and the proper intention of the minister. If any of these is lacking the sacrament is invalid and does not take place.


          The matter of a sacrament is some sensible action or thing, i.e., the material element of a sacrament (baptismal water...) The form of a sacrament are the essential words, e.g., “I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” The minister of the sacrament is the person conferring the sacrament.


          The person who confers the sacrament must have the proper intention, i.e., the person administering the sacrament must have the intention of doing what the Church does or what Christ instituted and ordered to be done (which is, in fact, the same thing). St. Thomas Aquinas taught, “There is required on the part of the minister that intention by which he subjects himself to the principal agent, i.e., intends to do what Christ does and the church.”[1]


          The Council of Florence clearly defined the essentials of the seven sacraments. “All these sacraments are brought to completion by three components; by things as matter, by words as form, and by the person of the minister effecting the sacrament with the intention of doing what the Church does. And if any one of these three is lacking, the sacrament is not effected.”[2]










          The valid administration of baptism depends upon the use of the correct rite together with the proper intention of the person administering it. A priest or bishop is not required for the valid administration of baptism. “Those who may administer baptism, in case of necessity,... are included all, even the laity, men and women, to whatever sect they may belong. This power extends, in case of necessity, even to Jews, infidels and heretics; provided, however, they intend to do what the Catholic Church does in that act of her ministry.” [3]


          Anyone can validly baptize, providing that he use water and recite the essential words with the intention of doing what the Church does or what Christ intended. “The theological reason for the validity of baptism when conferred by a heretical minister is to be sought in the maxim so constantly urged by St. Augustine: ‘It is Christ who baptizes.’”[4]


          However, if the person who is baptizing does not intend to do what Christ and the Church does, the baptism is invalid. In 1690 Pope Alexander VIII condemned the proposition that “Baptism is valid if conferred by a minister who observes the whole external rite and form of the sacrament, but interiorly in his heart says: I do not intend to do what the Church does.”[5]



          After the Second Vatican Council baptism was changed into the sacrament of Christian Initiation. Great stress is laid on the entrance into the community of the people of God while its power to remit original sin is all but ignored. Do those who administer this new rite intend to do what the Catholic Church does? If not, the “baptism” is invalid. Let us examine the evidence.







          The Second Vatican Council mandated changes in the sacraments. The Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano reported that “the Second Vatican Council introduced certain modifications in the very essence of the sacramental rites.”[6] The Constitution on the Liturgy of Vatican II ordered that the rite for the baptism of infants and adults be revised.[7]






          In its decree on Ecumenism, the Council asserts that ALL the baptized are members of Christ’s body. Speaking of the obstacles to unity, it says:


“But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the Children of the Catholic faith.” (#3)

They “have a right to be called Christian”? Why not simply “Catholic”? To be a member of Christ’s body means to be a member of His Mystical body, which is the Catholic Church. What other body of Christ is there?

“And are they correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church”? Why by the “children” and not simply by the “faithful” of the Catholic Church, and therefore as brothers in the Catholic faith?

“Let no one deceive you with vain words” (Eph. V, 6). Behind these ambiguities of Vatican II, Protestants are made out to be in fact Catholics. And that, be it noted, without their having either to profess the Catholic faith or submit to the authority of the Church - the other two requirements for membership in the Church, as the Catechism of the Council of Trent makes clear.


What then become of the Church as a visible society instituted by Christ, a society of the faithful united in the same faith and worship, and under the same government? “A city set upon a mountain cannot be hid” (Matt. V, 14). For Vatican II it is the “people of God” who will be saved. And who are the “people of God”? They are variously defined as “Catholics,” “all baptized Christians,” and finally as “all men of good will.” Small wonder that for Vatican II the more nebulous, amorphous “People of God” supersedes the Catholic Church as the means of salvation.

“So it is that this messianic people, although it does not actually include all men, and may more than once look like a small flock, is nonetheless a lasting and sure seed of unity, hope, and salvation for the while human race. (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, #9)

          Certainly, the Council does not, like Pope Pius XII, identify the Mystical body of Christ with the Catholic Church.


          While it is true that those validly baptized outside the Catholic Church, whether they be infants or adults in good faith, receive the grace of the sacrament and will be saved by it so long as it is not otherwise lost by sin. This is not by reason of their being members of the Church, or as otherwise belonging to its body - the body of the faithful - but as belonging to the soul of the Church; by their being, as the saying goes, Catholics “at heart.”  In this way, even those not sacramentally baptized at all can be saved, namely by the Baptism of Desire, or by Baptism of Blood, as the case may be. But only by external profession of the Catholic faith, whether this be public in the case of converts already baptized or by Baptism in the Catholic Church itself, does one actually become a member of the Church, and consequently a member of the Mystical Body.


          In the case of those baptized outside the Church, whether Protestants or schismatics, their admission into it – and so into the Mystical Body of Christ – depends on making profession of the Faith before a Catholic prelate or priest, and submitting to the Church’s authority. The Church is not, primarily, the society or body of the baptized but of the faithful. As very clearly stated in Mytici Corporis, (Pius XII) “those who are divided from one another in faith or in government cannot live in the unity of such a body, and in its one divine spirit.”[8]



          Changes (alterations, deletions, and insertions) were made in the ritual to express the new theology of the Second Vatican Council. The new rite for the baptism of infants was introduced on June 1, 1970. The RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults) was issued on January 6, 1972. The Modernists also attempted to reshape the traditional Catholic teaching on original sin and sanctifying grace.


          The official documents relating to the new rite of baptism (50 pages of small print) have only a single passing reference to original sin.[9] At the same time the document is replete with phrases such as “through the sacraments of Christian initiation men and women are freed from the power of darkness” and “made God’s sons and daughters with the entire people of God.” Again, “baptism is above all the sacrament of that faith by which men and women are incorporated into the Church, built up together in the Spirit into a house where God lives, into a holy nation and a royal priesthood. It is a sacred bond of unity linking all who have been signed by it.”


          Is this new rite of baptism a valid sacrament? Absent an official declaration as to the invalidity of the new sacramental rite, we can still affirm the principle that any substantial change in the sacramental rites invalidates the sacrament.


          Although numerous changes were introduced into the new rite of baptism the essential words “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” have been retained. However, this does not assure the validity of the new rite.


          Since the Second Vatican Council, numerous priests have “experimented” with the essential rites of the sacraments including baptism. Instead of using the correct words, “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” some priests have made up their own form and altered the essential words of baptism. Others changed the essential ceremony. Instead of pouring the water while reciting the essential words they “experimented” and made up their own order of things. Sometimes the water is not poured properly. These and other defects have rendered many baptisms doubtful, others certainly invalid.


          Archbishop Francis Kenrick wrote, “Where no water is applied, it is absurd to suppose baptism: where the application of the water is scanty and careless, as when a few drops are sprinkled towards the person, or the moist finger is slightly pressed on the forehead, there is great reason to fear that there is no baptism. Where the words are preceded by others, which modify or change their meaning, or where they are not morally connected with the ablution (application of water), being uttered before or after it at a considerable interval, the baptism is doubtful, if not null.”[10]


          However, the greatest threat to the validity of baptism in the New Church comes from a possible defective intention on the part of the minister. Many priests have accepted the heresies of Teilhard de Chardin on original sin. Some openly proclaim their disbelief in original sin and the purpose of baptism as established by Christ. The regenerative power of baptism (the removal of original sin) is considered unimportant or irrelevant. Will these priests have the proper intention when conferring baptism?







It will be argued by some that Teilhard de Chardin is no longer a recognized influence. This may be true with regard to his name, but certainly not with regard to his ideas which are very much with us. Who was this strange individual?


          Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was a French Jesuit priest who taught a combined form of Darwinian evolution and “Catholic” theology. According to evolutionary theology the notion of an unchangeable Deposit of Faith is seen as an illusion because nothing is exempt from substantial change. “His faith was not that of the Catholic Church and he knew it. After all, he had studied enough to know that the Faith of the Church is a faith in the words of Jesus Christ and that consequently this faith cannot change substantially.”[11]


          “In 1927 Rome refused an imprimatur on his book Le Milieu Divin. In 1933 he was ordered not to teach in Paris. In  1933 Rome refused him permission to publish L’energie Humain. In 1944 his Phenomene Human was banned. In 1948, summoned by his Superior General to Rome, he sought permission once more to publish his Phenomene Humain - and was refused. Again in 1949 and 1955 his printings and activities were restricted. In December of 1957, a decree from the Holy Office ordered the withdrawal of his works from Catholic libraries, seminaries, religious institutions and bookshops.”[12]


          “Most of the essays never saw print until after his death because many of his ideas were considered too unorthodox by various authorities in the Church... His outspokenness on many traditionally expressed doctrines of the Church, such as original sin, sincerely disturbed his superiors and so, in 1925, he received instructions ‘sympathetically given,’ to concentrate on scientific work and return to China.”[13] “In reality, Teilhard was being silenced by a virtual exile from Europe.” [14] He died suddenly on April 10, 1955, in New York City.


          ,”He was not allowed to publish his most significant works during his lifetime and, in fact, they have never been published with a Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur (official declarations that the books are free of doctrinal or moral error).”[15] On June 30, 1962 the Holy Office issued a monitum (warning) “against the ambiguities and even grave errors against Catholic doctrine: in his writings.”[16] “In 1963 the Vicariate of Rome, in a decree, required that Catholic bookshops in Rome should withdraw from circulation the works of de Chardin, and also those books which favor his erroneous doctrines.”[17]


          Why does the Catholic Church consider the teachings of Teilhard de Chardin to be so dangerous and revolutionary? The writings of Teilhard de Chardin are one of the main sources of the fundamental errors in theology and philosophy today. He laid the basis for a new ecumenical religion which completely abandoned the Catholic faith. It is a new faith which claims to be the Catholic faith. “It is not, in any case, the faith of the Catholic Church... through the Holy Office, the organ qualified to speak in her name, the Church has thought it necessary to declare that she does not recognize herself in Teilhard’s writings.”[18]


          Dr. von Hildebrand referred to Teilhard de Chardin and other Modernist writers in his Trojan Horse in the City of God: “We cannot escape the impression that these writers not only have lost their Catholic faith, but also no longer understand the very nature of religion based on divine revelation. It is sad enough when people lose their faith and leave the Church, but it is much worse when those who in reality have lost their faith remain within the Church and try - like termites - to undermine the Christian faith.”[19]



          The writings of St. Thomas Aquinas and Teilhard de Chardin are at two opposite ends of the spectrum. Thomistic philosophy is clear, ordered, and logical. The teachings of Chardin are obscure, disordered and illogical. This will become readily apparent as his writings are read. Teilhard coined a large number of words (e.g. noosphere, totalization, Christogenesis, Omega point, pleromization and a hundred others) to describe different stages in his evolutionary theory.






          One of the greatest scholars on de Chardin, Cardinal Journet, gave his verdict on the works of Teilhard as follows: “de Chardin’s works are disastrous... it must be accepted or rejected as as a whole; but it contradicts Christianity... If one accepts de Chardin’s explanations one must reject the Christian notion of Creation, Spirit, God, Evil, Original Sin, the Cross, the Resurrection,  Divine Love, etc.”[20]


          Teilhard taught that Christian Tradition is to be classified among the “whims and childishness of the earth.” In his book, Stuff of the Universe, Teilhard de Chardin made no secret of the amount of Christian doctrine he was prepared to throw overboard; the very core of dogma had to be reshaped. “I have come to the conclusion that, in order to pay for a drastic valorization and amortization of the substance of things, a whole series of re-shaping of certain representations or attitudes which seem to us definitely fixed by Catholic dogma has become necessary if we sincerely wish to Christify evolution. Seen thus, and because of ineluctable necessity, one could say that a hitherto unknown form of religion is gradually germinating in the heart of modern Man, in the furrow opened by the idea of evolution.”[21]


          “Obviously, such a theory imposes either the abandonment or the complete transformation of all the basic doctrines of Roman Catholicism. Creation, Original Sin, the divinity of Jesus, redemption by Jesus’s death on the cross of Calgary, the Church, the forgiveness of sins, the Sacrifice of the Mass, priesthood, papal infallibility, Hell, Heaven, supernatural grace - even the existence and freedom of God - all must be reformulated, and perhaps abandoned in large part.”[22]


          Teilhard de Chardin believed that evolution was superior to the Deposit of the Faith. He wrote: “Is evolution a theory, a system, or a hypothesis? It is much more: it is the general condition to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must bow and which they must satisfy henceforward if they are to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light illuminating all facts, a curve that all lines must follow.”[23]


          Many people view Teilhard de Chardin as a great scientist who has reconciled Catholicism and science by introducing a new evolutionary theology. Deitrich von Hildebrand said, “Though I am not a competent judge of Teilhard as a scientist, this opinion may be questioned without expertise. For one thing, every careful thinker knows that a reconciliation of science and the Christian faith has never been needed, because true science (in contradistinction to false philosophies disguised in scientific garments) can never be incompatible with Christian faith. Science can neither prove nor disprove the truth of the faith.”[24]



          “It had never been Teilhard’s intention to defend and reinstate the traditional Christian teaching; instead, his objective from the start has been to reshape the doctrine. ‘What we have to do without delay is to modify the position occupied by the core of Christianity...’ In a word, Teilhard’s objective is to found a new Christianity.”[25]


          Dietrich von Hildebrand gives us further insight into Teilhard de Chardin. In reference to a conversation he once had with Teilhard on St. Augustine, Teilhard de Chardin “exclaimed violently: ‘Don’t mention that unfortunate man; he spoiled everything by introducing the supernatural.’ This remark confirmed the impression I had gained of the crass materialism of his views, but it also struck me in another way: the criticism of St. Augustine - the greatest of the Fathers of the Church - betrayed Teilhard’s lack of a genuine sense of intellectual and spiritual grandeur.”[26]







          In Teilhard’s new Christianity there is no place for sanctifying grace and the supernatural. The Church’s doctrines of original sin and Redemption have no real meaning in his new religion. Even Teilhard de Chardin was aware of the incompatibility of Divine Revelation with his new teachings when he wrote, “Sometimes I am a bit afraid, when I think of the transposition to which I must submit my mind concerning the vulgar notions of creation, inspiration, miracle, original sin, resurrection, etc. in order to be able to accept them.”[27]


          Teilhard has been criticized because “he didn’t know what to do with original sin.” The Catholic doctrine of original sin conflicted with his theories. “In dealing with original sin... he occasionally offered explanations that were rightly judged to be unsatisfactory.”[28]


          These teachings regarding original sin varied. The form he gave them was certainly untenable. For example, “the “original evil’, Teilhard seems to have maintained, was certainly a reality, but it extended back far beyond man, to the whole of the created world. Every structure as soon as it begins to exist is menaced by death: this ‘“original” deficiency weighs upon every creature. This mortality itself is the deficiency which for Teilhard, as some interpret him, takes on at the human level the name of sin.”[29]


          He realized that there would be difficulty in winning acceptance for his erroneous theory on original sin. Teilhard wrote, “I don’t think that in the history of the Church anyone has ‘pulled off’ such an adjustment of dogma as that of which we’re speaking - though similar attempts have been made and carried half-way...”[30]


          Chardin wrote, “Original sin continually obstructs the natural expansion of our religion. It clips the wings of our hopes. “At every moment we are reaching out to the wide-open field of the good things that optimism can win, and every time it drags us back to the over-riding shadows of reparation and expiation.” It is a “strait-jacket that checks any movement of heart or head”; it “binds us hand and foot and drains the blood from us because, as it is now expressed, it represents a survival of static concepts that are an anachronism in our evolutionist system of thought.”[31]      


          In a letter Pere Marechal wrote to Teilhard referring to his theory of original sin, he stated: “This new explanation modifies, it seems to me, the essential basis, and not simply the formulation of the ‘defined’ dogma. More precisely still, it suppresses the dogma, by declaring that it is superfluous. What in fact it does is to replace original sin by the distant ontological root of physical and moral evil. Now, this root, this metaphysical possibility of evil, inherent in the creature qua creatura, neither calls for nor rules out the state of supernatural justification, and therefore cannot take on, with the ‘privation of original justice’, the relationship of active principle with effective consequence which the Council of Trent asserts so clearly of the sin of Adam. The whole Christian economy of ‘justification’ is upset. The hypothesis put forward would lead to saying that mankind as such has never lost its initial right to grace and that the deprivation of grace is to be seen, in each individual, simply as the effect of a fault of which he is now guilty. All that would remain under the name of ‘original sin’ would be simply the imperfections of the created being, ‘the radical condition that causes the creature to be born from the multiple’ - in other words a philosophical truth’”[32]  


          It is certain that Teilhard had ended by no longer believing in original sin, as is shown by his letter of April 8, 1955 (two days before his death) to Fr. Andre Ravier: “In the Universe of Cosmogenesis, in which Evil is no longer catastrophic (i.e., no longer the result of an accident) but evolutive (i.e., the statistically unavoidable by-product of a universe in course of unification in God).”[33]


Teilhard’s theory of evolution demanded polygenism (many First Parents). He did not believe in our common descent from our First Parents, Adam and Eve (monogamy). As a result he rejected the doctrine of original sin. Since Teilhard did not believe in the creation of the Biblical first man, Adam and the first woman, Eve, he taught that there were many “First Parents” who evolved from primates at one time. In such a hypothesis original sin is impossible.

The writings of Teilhard de Chardin express this belief in an evolving group of first men and women. “He wrote in Mon Universe, An ‘original multiple’ was born from the dissociation of an already  unified being (the first Adam); then came a second phase of ‘involution’ of spirit in matter, an evidently non-empirical phase. Fr. Bosio objects to a phrase in Teilhard’s book, The Phenomenon of Man, ‘From the point of view of science then, which from a distance only covers collectives, the first  man is and can only be a crowd; and his youth is made of thousands and thousands of years.’”[34]

Pope Pius XII condemned polygenism in his encyclical Humani Generis: “The faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation through him as from the first parent of all, nor that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which through generation is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.”[35]

          Joseph Kopp, the author of A New  Synthesis of Evolution, says that Church doctrine and Teilhard’s theories are irreconcilable. “We must be quite clear about this: whoever postulates an “intervention’ on the part of God in His own work does not just modify de Chardin’s concepts, he destroys the very core of his philosophy. To speak of ‘the introduction of the human soul through a special act of creation’ is to remove all meaning from de Chardin’s theory of purposeful evolution of the biosphere towards man. Also his theory of the evolution of the noosphere[36] which, as we shall see, becomes completely unintelligible if one accepts the idea of intervention. We have to accept Teilhard’s view of an upward-developing creation up to and including man or reject his entire philosophy.”[37]


          It is impossible to reconcile Teilhard’s teachings on original sin with the “through one man sin entered into the world” (Romans 5:12) to which the Council of Trent specifically referred when formulating its decree on original sin: “If anyone does not profess that the first man Adam immediately lost the justice and holiness in which he was constituted when he disobeyed the commandment of God... let him be anathema.”[38]


          The Church presents no interpretation of the traditional expressions “Our First Parents,” “The Garden of Eden,” “The Fall”, and “Original Sin” that would allow Teilhard’s hypothesis to be even vaguely theologically acceptable. His concept of original sin is contrary to Christian revelation and Church teaching.


          The teachings of Teilhard de Chardin lead ultimately to a denial of the divinity of Christ. What a radical difference between the doctrine of the Catholic Church and the theological fiction of de Chardin! “Teilhard’s Christ is no longer Jesus, the God-man, the Redeemer; instead, He is the initiator of purely natural evolutionary process and, simultaneously, its end - the Christ-Omega. In his basic conception of the world which does not provide for original sin in the sense the Church gives to this term, there is no place for Jesus Christ of the Gospels; for if there is no original sin, then the redemption of man through Christ loses its inner meaning.”[39]








          Where is the connection between Teilhard de Chardin and the Vatican II rite of baptism (initiation)? Although Teilhard de Chardin died many  years before the new rite of baptism was introduced, the Second Vatican Council, Paul VI, and the liturgical “reformers” were influenced by his teachings. Paul VI, who changed the sacrament of baptism into the rite of Christian Initiation, said that “Fr. Teilhard is an indispensable man for our times; his expression of faith is necessary for us.”[40]


          Fr. Teilhard was often quoted on the floor of the Council and in the opinion of more than one writer had an influence on the outcome of that historical council comparable to that of Pope John XXIII. For example, Father D. Campion, who prepared the commentary and explanatory notes for the English language edition of the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Vatican II’s most important document, wrote, ‘Here as elsewhere, it is easy to recognize the compatibility of insights developed by thinkers such as Teilhard de Chardin in his Divine Milieu with the fundamental outlook of the Council.’”[41]


          Teilhard had a tremendous vision of the Church as a community of Christian love, where people live together as individuals, yet united in love-total, unbounded, without limit - within the world; a sign of the presence of God, finally and fully as Love.”[42] His concept of baptism was simply an initiation into this community. In Teilhard’s religion there is no place for the supernatural life of grace which is infused into souls through baptism. For him, union with God consists principally  in assimilation into the evolutionary process.


          The heretical teachings of Teilhard de Chardin have been widely circulated through the seminaries, schools, religious houses, and libraries of the New Church. His teachings represent an apostasy from the Catholic Church. “Fr. de Lubac, S.J., speaking at the Institution on Renewal in the Church said in Toronto in 1967 that clearly ‘the Church is facing a grave crisis.’ ‘Under the name of the ‘the new church,’ ‘the post-Conciliar church’ a different church from that of Jesus Christ is now trying to establish itself.”[43] Teilhard de Chardin had laid the foundation of this new church.








          The erroneous teachings of Teilhard de Chardin regarding original sin have been assimilated and adopted by some priests. This has caused many to have false views and beliefs on baptism. Can they validly administer baptism?


          The Church teaches that even heretics can baptize validly if they intend to administer the baptism of Christ and use the right matter and form in administering it. “The validity of baptism does not depend on the minister or the kind of person he may be, but on the fact that, wishing to administer the baptism of Christ, he uses the correct rite. ”[44]


          St. Augustine said that anyone who follows the rite instituted by Christ administers baptism validly.[45] “After the Fathers, this question was gradually developed, and by the time of St. Thomas it was universally held by theologians that anyone, man or woman, baptized or unbaptized, could validly baptize. It must, of course, be clearly understood that a right intention, that is, an intention of doing what the Church of Christ does, is always necessary  for the validity of the sacrament.”[46]


          Baptism administered by a non-Catholic is valid if he uses the correct rite and intends to administer the baptism of Christ. The baptism is valid because of the principle of simple error. The Church makes a distinction between the belief in a person’s mind and the intent in his will. In other words, a person who administers baptism may have false beliefs in his mind about the nature, effects, and efficacy of baptism. However, as long as his will intends to perform the baptism of Christ, the sacrament is valid.


          In the example above, simple error may be in the mind of the person because he has a poor or even erroneous understanding of baptism. Yet, as long as he does not have an actual intention in his will contrary to the general intention of Christ and His Church, the baptism is valid. If the person who administers baptism by a special act of his will does not intend to do what Christ wanted and instituted and the Church does, the sacrament would be invalid.


          The principle of simple error must be clearly understood. “Error is a false judgment of the mind. The error is simple if it remains in the mind without passing over into the will, and so without modifying the act which the will elicits.”[47] Theologians make a distinction between the error in the mind and the intention in the will.


          The topic of the minister’s intention in baptism was covered in an article in the American Ecclesiastical Review. I will quote several passages from this article. The principle of simple error will help one to understand the reasoning of theologians on this subject.


          Ulric Beste begins by listing the essential elements of a sacrament. “It is then certain and admitted by all that, besides the matter and form prescribed by Christ, also the proper intention on the part of the minister is required for validity in the administration of baptism. However, as is commonly taught by theologians, this intention need not necessarily be explicit or express, nor determinate and distinct or well-defined.; it is quite sufficient that it exist confusedly and implicitly in the mind of the minister.”


          “Indeed, no more is necessary than that he intends to perform what the Church performs, or what Christ instituted and ordered to be done, or what he ordinarily sees pastors or Christians do in their churches. This remains true although interiorly in his heart and mind he feels and is convinced that this is a vain and meaningless ceremony and that the Church in performing it certainly errs and posits a purely  inefficacious act. This conclusion is evident from the practice of the Church, for she will not order or allow rebaptism for the sole and simple reason that a Jew or Saracen, pagan or heretic, who frequently know little or nothing about the purpose and powers of baptism, administered the sacrament, provided of course the duly requisite matter and form were employed.”[48]


          The principle of simple error is now used in reference to the minister of baptism. “Error and mistaken notions about baptism, holding it to be but an external sign of aggregation without any effect upon the soul, even when systematically taught as a tenet of a sect and obstinately declared by a minister immediately before the act of baptizing (whether as part of the ceremonial of baptism or not), do not yet destroy the intention of doing what the Church does or what Christ instituted; his general intention prevails over and, as it were, absorbs the private or qualified mental attitude of the minister towards baptism due to false doctrines and heretical ideas; error can coexist with a right intention.”[49]


          “The reason is that the minister’s general intention to do what Christ instituted predominates and absorbs false ideas and opinions. Error is rooted in the intellect, while intention is an act of the will. The Sacred Congregation does not tire to repeat and insist in its pronouncements that error about the effect of a sacrament does not  make it impossible for a minister to have the necessary intention to perform what Christ has instituted.”[50]



          The Code of Canon Law applies this same principle to marriage cases. Canon 1084 describes simple error regarding the unity or the indissolubility or the sacramental dignity of marriage in these terms: “‘In order that such error may vitiate the consent, it must be transferred to and made part of the intention by a positive act of the will, as is stated explicitly in canon 1086, section 2,’ But if either party or both parties by a positive act of the will should exclude marriage itself, or all rights to the conjugal act, or any essential property of marriage, he contracts invalidly.’”[51]


          Let us apply this principle now to baptism. “Analogously in baptism false notions and errors with regard to the nature, efficacy, and effects of the sacrament are compatible with the minister’s true and sincere intention of doing what the true Church does or what Christ has instituted.”[52]


          Let us examine this principle in the intention of the minister of baptism. The will embraces its object as represented by the mind. False notions and errors with regard to the nature, efficacy and effects of the sacrament may remain in the mind. This simple error of the mind is compatible with the proper intention in the will. As long as the minister of baptism does not have an actual prevailing intention in his will contrary to the general intention of Christ and His Church, the sacrament is valid.


          If the minister of the sacrament of baptism by a special act of the will elicits a contrary intention to the general intention to do what Christ wanted and instituted and the Church does, the sacrament would be invalid. Therefore, in the face of an  actual prevailing intention to the contrary to what Christ wanted and instituted and the Church does, this general intention would be nullified and destroyed.


          The decisions and pronouncements of the church make this principle stand out clearly. “At one time in France a dispute had arisen whether those baptized by the Calvinists should be rebaptized. St. Pius V settled the controversy by defining that baptism was not to be repeated. It should be noted that the Calvinists, like our sects, denied baptism to have any efficacy to regenerate. Yet the instruction makes it clear that erroneous views in the minister ‘circa intelligentiam formae vel aliquem effectum do not render the sacrament invalid, provided the right matter and form instituted by Christ were used with the general intention to perform what Christ instituted; that this general intention prevails over the particular error or wrong private interpretation. Error and heretical opinion about the nature and effects of baptism can therefore coexist with a sincere intention of doing what Christ did or had instituted.”[53]


          “It is possible, of course, that a minister carry his heretical ideas from the realm of his intellect into that of his intention in such a way that, although pronouncing the words of the essential form in baptism, he wills and intends to administer a mere external rite or ceremony shorn of all spiritual meaning and efficacy. But to bring that about the must elicit a positive act whereby he specifically and definitely excludes and rules out all regeneration when performing the essential rite of baptism.”


          “False views and beliefs based upon the heretical opinions and teachings, changes and alterations, even when systematically introduced or manifested in the ceremonial parts of the ritual, written or unwritten, do not constitute a sufficient indication and proof that the minister, even when pronouncing the essential form accurately and completely, has a heretical intention so tainted by error as to vitiate the sacrament essentially.”


          “For so long as that heretical error as regards baptism manifests itself in the ceremonial portion of the ritual only; so long as the sect holds that material rite of baptism to be an institution of Christ; so long as in the administration of the sacrament, the scriptural form, handed down by Christ and observed constantly in the Church, is seriously and scrupulously adhered to; in short, so long as the sect and its ministers think that they are performing and repeating that rite of Christ, the  Church justly and reasonably presumes and must presume that they want to do what Christ wanted and instituted and the true Church does, whatever the minister in a particular case may think about the true nature, necessity and efficacy of the sacrament.”[54]








          For a valid sacrament one must have valid matter, form, intention, and minister. Prior to Vatican II one could assume that a priest had the proper intention when he confected a sacrament. He was well instructed in the seminary in regard to the proper intention for each sacrament. Also, the rite, (i.e., the particular prayers of the Church for each sacrament) sets the proper intention for the priest.


          The teachings of Teilhard de Chardin on original sin have been condemned by the Catholic Church. Many priests since Vatican II have followed these errors. A simple error in the mind of the minister does not invalidate a sacrament as long as he intends to administer the sacrament of Christ. In some cases, the person who administers a sacrament not only has a simple error in his mind, but his will positively intends to perform a rite contrary to the intention of Christ and the Church. He invalidates the sacrament. Priests who follow the teachings of Teilhard do validly baptize if they intend to administer the baptism of Christ and use the proper matter and form.


          However, baptism administered by these priests is invalid if they have an intention in their will contrary to the general intention of Christ and His Church. The sacrament is invalid if the minister of baptism elicits a positive act whereby he specifically and definitely excludes and rules out all regeneration when performing the essential rite of baptism. He carries his heretical ideas from the realm of his intellect into that of his intention in such a way that, although pronouncing the words of the essential form in baptism, he wills and intends to administer a mere external rite or ceremony shorn of all spiritual meaning and efficacy.


          Archbishop Kenrick says that a simple error of the mind may lead to a perversion of the will resulting in  a defective intention and an invalid baptism. “The belief in its efficacy to remit sin is not indeed necessary for its valid performance: yet may we not fear that the prevailing errors concerning its being a mere form of association to the visible Church, utterly void of all spiritual efficacy, may so pervert the intention of the person who baptizes (my emphasis), that he may propose to himself rather to comply with an established usage and form, than seriously to administer an institution of Christ our Lord?”[55] Could this quotation of Archbishop Kenrick be applied to Chardinian-minded ministers?


          In summary, since Vatican II many  sacraments have been rendered invalid  due to a defect in matter, form, minister and intention. A minister of baptism who accepts the heresies of Teilhard de Chardin in regard to original sin has at least a simple error of the mind. If his will has an intention contrary to the intention of Christ and the Church when administering baptism, the sacrament is invalid. Priests who follow the teachings of Vatican II do validly baptize if they intend to administer the baptism of Christ and use proper matter and form.








          Father Halligan gives some practical guidelines for the investigation of baptism. “It is absolutely necessary to determine if de facto baptism has already taken place and, if so, whether it was a valid administration. No preconceived notions or presumptions that all non-Catholic baptisms are invalid or doubtfully valid suffice.[56] Dogmatic errors do not of themselves make baptism by non-Catholic ministers invalid.[57]


          Each case must be carefully considered to provide for the salvation of the soul and to guard against irreverence to the sacrament through a useless administration. Only moral impossibility excuses from such investigation. If nothing can be ascertained about the baptism, at least conditional baptism is necessary.”[58]


          Therefore, in receiving those who have been baptized with the new rite of Christian Initiation the priest must investigate each case. If the inquiry reveals that baptism was conferred invalidly the sacrament is to be administered absolutely. The sacrament should be administered conditionally if the point of validity or invalidity remains doubtful.


          “Conditional baptism is given when it is uncertain whether a person has been baptized, or when there is fear of the sacrament having been administered improperly.”[59] Father Davis writes: “Whenever a prudent doubt based on probable reasons persists regarding the validity of a sacrament bestowed, that sacrament may be repeated.”[60]


          Baptism is of its nature absolutely necessary for salvation. “The repetition of the sacrament ought to be done where its validity is doubted - or rather, so long as its validity is not morally certain.”[61]






It is virtually impossible to invalidate the Sacrament of Marriage providing the partners involved have the correct intention. This is because, as the Council of Florence declared, "the efficient cause of Matrimony (i.e., as a Sacrament) invariably is the mutual consent expressed by words in the present tense." "Pius IX taught that "among Christians there can be no marriage [correct intention assumed] which is not at the same time a Sacrament... and consequently the Sacrament can never be separated from the marital contract" (Allocution, Sept. 27, 1852).


 According to Pohle-Preuss, Bellarmine, Suarez, Sanchez and other theologians of equal stature, "both the matter and form of the Sacrament are contained in the marital contract itself; being the words of consent spoken by the contracting parties, or the signs used. The words or signs constitute the matter of the Sacrament in so far as they signify the mutual surrender of the bodies (tradition), and its form in so far as they signify the acceptance (acceptio) of the same."[62]


To simplify the issue, one can state that the mutual consent of the contracting parties to give themselves to each other (the contract) is the matter of the Sacrament, and the giving of consent in the present tense, the form. This is consistent with the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas that "the words in which the matrimonial consent is expressed constitute the form of this Sacrament; not the sacerdotal blessing, which is a sort of sacramental."[63] (The Contract as such is not distinguishable from the words of consent.)


What then is the role of the priest? According to Phole Preuss, "the contracting parties to a marriage administer the Sacrament to each other. The priest is merely the minister of the (accidental) celebration and the representative and chief official witness of the Church. This explains why his presence is required by ecclesiastical law.


The conditions for validity are four. The recipients must be baptized, they must be of different sexes, there must be no diriment impediment in the way of their marriage (such as previous valid marriage) and they must have the intention of doing what the Church does - i.e. of contracting a Christian marriage. (Normally, a marriage must be solemnized before a priest - however, if no priest is available and is unlikely to be available for a long period of time (as occurs for example in certain parts of Mexico), the marriage can occur without him, though it must be solemnized by a priest when one becomes available.)


Proper intention is of course required on the part of the recipients of this Sacrament. That intention may be implicit, but the contrary intention should not be present. A valid marriage contract must be "till death do us part," must consider the primary purpose of marriage to be the procreation of children and their education in the faith.[64]





Space does not allow for a full consideration of the new catechesis on the nature of marriage. Two fundamental principles however have been abrogated and each of them of sufficient importance to possibly vitiate the marriage contract and thus the exclude the sacramental nature of the union. Moreover, the post-Conciliar minister (president, priest?) must inform the persons about to be married both before the ceremony and during the ceremony of these changes.[65]





It is clear from Ephesians V that marriage is a hierarchical structure. Paul explicitly taught that the partners in marriage should be subject to one another, in the fear of Christ." He further taught "Let women be subject to their husbands, as tp the Lord: because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is head of the Church... as the Church is subject to Christ, so also let wives be to their husbands in all things."[66] This principle is repeated in innumerable places in both the Old and New Testaments; it is concurred with by Peter who says "in like manner also let wives be subject to their husbands" (1 Pet. III:1). Likewise, this principle has been repeatedly confirmed by the popes. Pope Pius XI considered the submission of women to man as a fundamental law of the family, established and fixed by God. Pope Pius XII specified that "to reestablish an hierarchy within the family, something indispensable to its unity as well a to its happiness, to grandeur, this was one of Christianity's greatest undertakings, since that day when Christ proclaimed, before the Pharisees and the people, 'what therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.'"


The teaching of the new Rome is first seen in the pastoral constitution Gaudium et Spes (declared by Paul VI to the supreme form of the ordinary magisterium): "just as of old God encountered his people with a covenant of love and fidelity, so our savior, the spouse of the Church, now encounters Christian spouses through the sacrament of Marriage. He abides with them in order that by their mutual self-giving, spouses will love each other with enduring fidelity, as he loved the Church and delivered himself for it." Here the teaching of Ephesians has been decisively abridged. Only what is agreeable has been taken from it, namely "love." The subordination of women and, correlatively, that of the Church to her Head, is simply disregarded. Drawing on this statement the Synod of Wurzburg declared in 1975 that the husband and wife were to be seen as partners, and that "the allotment of roles between husband and wife, which was strongly patriarchal in character, has been corrected."\


This is also the teaching of John Paul II who holds that love creates equality. In his Apostolic Letter Familiaris consortio issued in 1981 he teaches that "above all it is important to underline the equal dignity and responsibility of women and men... in creating the human race 'male and female,' God gives man and woman an equal personal dignity, endowing them with the inalienable rights and responsibilities proper to the human person." The same "responsibilities" for man and woman exclude man from being the head of the family. This was made even more explicit in the Charter of Family Rights promulgated by Rome in 1983 where it states that "the husband and wife have the same dignity and the same rights with respect to their marriage." Again, in a statement published in "L'Osservatore Romano, John Paul II explains away the Paulist injunction on the grounds that "the author [Paul] does not hesitate to accept those ideas which were proper to the contemporary mentality and to its forms of expression... Our sentiments are certainly different today, different also are our mentality and customs, and finally, different is a woman's social position vis-a-vis the man."[67] All this is a far cry from the statement of the German bishops in 1953 to the effect that:


"Anyone who, as a matter of principle, denies the responsibility of the husband and father as head of the woman and of the family, puts himself in opposition to the Gospel and the doctrine of the Church."[68]





The second significant change in the theology of marriage pertains to the two ends of marriage. The traditional Church taught de fide that:


"The primary end of Marriage is the procreation and education of offspring, while its secondary purposes are mutual help and the allaying (also translated "as a remedy for") concupiscence. The latter are entirely subordinate to the former."



Now in saying that this teaching is de fide,[69] one is saying that Catholics must believe this to be true. Vatican II however places the Catholic couple in an untenable position because it teaches, with equal authority, that the two ends of marriage are equal, and further lists the secondary end before the primary one.[70] With the traditional teaching couples whose love for any reason had grown cold, still stayed together for the sake of the children. Now, should the first listed reason for marriage no longer persist, divorce or separation is justified. No longer does the procreation and education of children come first. And to further facilitate the possibility of divorce, one of the new and post-Conciliar indications allowed by the Rota (marriage court) is "psychological immaturity." Needless to say, it is only the saint who is not psychologically immature.


What are the consequences of entering marriage with the understanding (or misunderstanding) about the hierarchical nature of this state of life - to say nothing of the perversion of its purpose? Without presuming to speak in absolute terms, let us consider the opinion of Father Klaus Moersdorf, a theologian and expert in Canon law. It is his opinion that the hierarchical relationship between man and woman is fraught with a crucial importance for marriage. According to him, this idea corresponds to the previously mentioned teachings of the popes... A marriage is realized through the uniformity of the will of both people. Both parties of the marriage have to be in agreement in order to affirm "the essential content of the marriage contract, which is to say the one who wishes to comclude a marriage must be ready to accept three characteristics of marriage. These are: the right to the body, the indissolubility of marriage and the unity of marriage."


The unity of marriage signifies, according to Father Moersdorf, the union of one man with one woman, and therefore a single couple (monogomy), and that the man and the woman be united in a hierarchical order by a holy unity. According to this author, for the realization of a valid marriage, it is indispensable that the contracting parties recognize and fulfill these three conditions. "If the necessary understanding and will for the conclusion of a marriage are seriously lacking, the marriage will not be valid."


 Consequently, it is to be feared that if a marriage is concluded in the spirit of a partnership, and if at least one of the parties rejects the superiority of the man, that marriage is not validly concluded. That means that such partners live together without being united by the marriage bond and without receiving the graces which the sacrament of marriage effects." Dr. Seibel, a professor of sociology and a theologian of some repute states that "a marriage, deprived of its head, is 'decapitated' in the true sense of the word, which is to say that it is 'dead.' At any rate, a marriage which is strictly a partnership can in no case be considered as a Christian marriage."[71]

Following upon the conclusion, an essay on the nature of Catholic Marriage is offered as an Appendix.





The Sacraments are of critical importance to the spiritual life of Catholics. They were instituted by Christ as means of grace, and their integrity is independent of man's innovative needs. "Lord, by Your divine sacraments you renew the world. Let your Church draw benefit from Your sacred rites, and do not leave her without temporal aids either. This we ask through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Collect for Matins, Friday, Fourth Week in Lent).

There is no doubt but that the post-Conciliar Church has played fast and loose with the Sacraments. Whether or not the result has rendered some of them invalid is for the reader to try to figure out. Similarly, and what in the practical order amounts to the same thing, is the question as to whether or not they have been rendered doubtful. If either is the case, their usage is sacrilegious and to be avoided.


All these changes have been carried out for two basic reasons - aggiornamento and ecumenism. Both reasons are intrinsically absurd and damaging to the Faith. There has never been a need for the revealed teachings of Christ to adapt themselves to the modern or any other world. The very concept denies the intrinsic nature of Catholic truth which is why it has always been necessary for the world to adapt itself to the teachings of Christ. Proof of the invalidity of this principle is provided by the fact that Christ made no attempt to adapt His teachings to the Jews or the Romans of his era; and that it was necessary for the Prodigal Son to return to the bosom of his father. As for the motivation of ecumenism, one can make but three comments. First: the very exclusive nature of Catholicism militates against ecumenism. Christ did not die on the Cross so that mankind could choose its own religious views. Secondly, ecumenism inevitably requires the watering down of Christian teaching, for it is only the lowest common denominator that can bring all our "separated brethren" into that false unity of "the people of God" which is desired. And Lastly, the very idea of ecumenism implies tolerence to error. It has never been necessary to be tolerent to the truth, and charity to error (as opposed to individuals who are in error) has never been a characteristic of the Catholic Faith.


By their fruits ye shall know them. We have now had some 35 years of the post-Conciliar establishment with her new sacramental forms. Clearly by every possible criteria imaginable, the results have been disastrous. The changes introduced by the documents of Vatican II would have all but been ignored if not implemented through the media of the sacraments - for indeed the lex credendi is reflected in the lex orandi - our beliefs are reflected in the manner in which we pray. This if nothing else should raise doubts in the minds of the faithful, not only about the sacramental changes, but also about the principles that inspired them.


There are those who will feel that these criticisms have been picky. What after all does a word here or there mean? One can only answer that words indeed do have meaning, or if not, then why have the sacraments at all. Despite the claims of modernists, the sacraments are not "rites of passage."  Consider the words of Pope Leo XIII with regard to doctrine:


"Nothing is more dangerous than the heretics who, while conserving almost all the remainder of the Church's teaching intact, corrupt WITH A SINGLE WORD, like a drop of poison, the purity and simplicity of the faith which we have received through tradition from God and through the Apostles."

If such could be said of doctrine, how much more can it be said of the Sacraments? Many will argue that obedience requires our acceptance of these changes. But consider the teaching of Suarez:


"[a Pope] also falls into Schism if he himself departs from the body of the Church by refusing to be in communion with her by participating in the sacraments... The Pope can become schismatic in this manner if he does not wish to be in proper communion with the body of the Church [i.e., the Church as she has always existed], a situation which would arise if he tried to excommunicate the entire Church, or, as both Cajetan and Torquenada observe, IF HE WISHED TO CHANGE ALL THE ECCLESIASTICAL CEREMONIES, FOUNDED AS THEY ARE ON APOSTOLIC TRADITION."



 This clearly raises the question of authority. Do the post-Conciliar "popes" have the authority to introduce these changes which are by their own admission "innovations," and reflective of a "new ecclesiology." Such a question cannot be answered within the framework of the present study, but it is one that every person who has doubts about the validity of the new sacraments must ask and eventually resolve.


What is clear however is that traditional Catholics who have doubts about the validity of the new sacramental forms, have every right to avoid them in practice, and to seek out and demand unquestionably valid sacraments. This issue is at the heart of the Catholic resistance.


Ó Rama Coomaraswamy 2002





[1]  Summa Theologica, 3a, q64, art. 8, ad.1

[2]  Denziger-Bannwart, No. 695

[3]  Catechism of the Council of Trent,  pp. 167-168.

[4] Right Rev. Joseph Pohle, PhD. DD. The Sacraments,  p. 174

[5] DB, n. 1318

[6]  L’Osservatore Romano, Nov. 7,  1974

[7] Walter Aabbott,  S.J., The Documents of Vatican II,  pp. 159-160

[8]  Taken in large part from Bishop McKenna’s comments on Ecumenical  Baptism, published in Catholics Forever, August 1996.

[9]  “washes away every stain of sin, original and personal”


[10]  Archbishop Francis Kenrick, A Treatise on Baptism.,  Baltimore: Hedian & O’Brien, 1852

[11] Henri Rambaud, The Strange Faith of Teilhard de Chardin, p. 23, Surrey: Anglo-Gaelic Civic Association, 1966.

[12]  Father Charles Coughlin, Bishops versus Pope pp. 215-216 Bloomfield Hills, MI: Helmet and Sword, 1969

[13]  R. Wayne Kraft, The Relevance of Teilhard, p. 20, Notre Dame, Indiana, Fides, 1968

[14] Hugh McElwain, O.S.M., Introduction to Teilhard de Chardin, p. 8. New York: Harper and Row, 1969

[15]  Ibid, p. 29

[16] T.Lincoln Bouscaren, S.J., Canon Law Digest   Text and Commentary, Vol V, ppp. 621-622. Milwaukee, Bruce, 1951

[17] J. W. Johnson,  Evolution?  , p. 120. Los Angeles, Perpetual Eucharistic Adoration, 1987

[18] Henri Rambaud, The Strange Faith of Teilhard de Chardin, p. 11., op. cit.

[19] Deitrich von Hilderbrand, Teilhard de Chardin: A False Prophet. p. 5,  Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1968

[20] Cardinal Journet, Nova et Vetera, October- December 1962

[21] Ouvres, vol. 5, p. 347.

[22] Malachy Martin, The Jesuits, p. 288.New York: Simon and Schuster, 1988.

[23] Teilhard de Chardin, Human Energy, p. 96

[24] Deitrich von Hildebrand, Teilhard de Chardin: A False Prophet, p. 10-. op. cit.

[25] Wolfgang Smith, Teilhardism and the New Religion, p. 23, Rockford, Ill, TAN 1988

[26] Deitrich von Hildebrand, Teilhard de Chardin: A False Prophet, p. 9. op.cit.

[27] Letter of December 17, 1922, as quoted in Rome et Teilhard de Chardin by Philippe de la Trinite,

[28] Henri de Lubac, The Religion of Teilhard de Chardin, p[. 120, New York, Desclee, 1967

[29]  Jean Onimus, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin  ou la foi du monde, p. 38ff.

[30] Teilhard de Chardin, Letter of May 14, 1922

[31] Teilhard de Chardin, Christianity and Evolution.

[32]  ibid, p.10.

[33] Quoted in Janus, No. 4, Dec. 1964, p. 32.

[34] Nicholas Corte, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, His Life and Spirit, p. 89New York: Macmillan, 1960

[35] Humani Generis, Paragraph No. 37

[36] a term used by Teilhard to describe a stage in his theory of evolution.

[37] Josepj Klopp, Teilhard de Chardin, A New Synthesis of Evolution. pp. 43-44. Glen Rock, N.J., Paulist Press, 1965

[38] DB No. 788-789

[39] Deitrich von Hildebrand, Teilhard de Chardin: A False Prophet, p. 23. op. cit.

[40]  R. Wayne Kraft,  The Relevance of teilhard, p. 29. [ editor’s note: John Paul II is a staunch believer in evolution as well as a follower of the theology of Paul VI (who also believed in evolution). With regard to Vatican II and the teachings of Paul VI: the principal task of his pontificate is “a coherent realization of the teaching and the directives of the Second Vatican Council is and continues to be the principal task of this pontificate.” (Address at a plenary meeting of the Sacred College of Cardinals, Nov. 5, 1979) With regard to evolution he has stated: “the evolution of living beings, of which science seeks to determine the stages and to discern the mechanism, presents an internal finality which arouses admiration. This finality which directs beings in a direction for which they are not responsible or in charge, obliges one to suppose a Mind which is its inventor, its Creator.” ((The Wanderer, August 6,1985.) . This may well explain his repeated statements to the effect that all men are saved. “Human nature, by the very fact that it was assumed, not absorbed, in him, has been raised in us to a dignity beyond compare. For by his incarnation, he, the Son of God, has in a certain way united himself with each man.” (Gaudium et Spes, No. 22) “From now on and always, without regret and wtithout turning back, God shall be with all mankind, becoming one with it, to save it and to give it His Son the redeemed... For all time, the Incarnation bestows upon man his unique, extraordinary and ineffable dignity.” (General Audience, March 25, 1981.)  “Christ obtained, once and for all, the salvation of man - of each man and of all men, of those whom no one shall snatch from His hand... Who can change the fact that we are redeemed - a fact that is as powerful and fundamental as creation itself. We became again the property of the Father thanks to that Love Who does not recoil from the ignomy of the Cross to be able to guarantee to all men “No one shall snatch you out of my hand.” The Church announces today the paschal certitude of the Resurrection, the certitude of salvation” (visit to Santa Maria in Treastevere, April 27, 1980). What then is the meaning of the Crucifixion? According to John Paul II, “it is precisely beside the path to man’s eternal election to the dignity of being an adopted child of God that there stands in history the Cross of Christ, the only-begotten Son, who  as ‘light of light, true God of true God,’ has come to give the final witness to this wonderful Covenant of God with humanity, of God with man - every human being.” (Dives et Misericordia, para.  5). One must suspect that John Paul II is himeself, if not a thorough going Teilhardian, at least strongly influenced by de Chardin’s thinking.)

[41] Deitrich von Hildebrand, Teilhard de Chardin: A False Prophet, p. 29.  The principle author of this particular document was John Paul II. (Cf. Note above).

[42] McElwain, Hjugh, O.S.,M. Introduction to Teilhard de Chardin, p. 71., New York: Harper and Row, 1969

[43] Deitrich von Hildebrand, Teiolhard de Chardin: A False Prophet, p. 5.

[44] Rev. John  Murphy, The Sacrament of Baptism., p. 55. , New York: Macmillan, 1929

[45] St.  Augustine, De bapt. cont. Donat., vii, 53, 102

[46] Rev. John Murphy, The Sacrament of Baptism, p. 55-56,  op. cit.

[47] T. Lincoln Bouscaren, S.J., Canon Law, A text and Commentary, p. 559., Milwaukee: Bruce, 1951.

[48] Ulric Beste, O.S.B., American Ecclessiastical Review, April 1950, p. 257

[49] ibid, p. 270

[50] ibid, p. 272

[51] John Abbo, S.T.L., J.C.D., and Hannan, Jerome D. AM. LLB. STD. JCD. The Sacred Canons,  Vol. II, pp. 305-309. St. Louis: Herder, 1952.

[52] Ulric Beste, O.S.B., op. cit., p. 273.

[53]  Ulric Beste, O.S.B. op cit. , p. 268-269

[54] Ulric Beste, O.S.B., op. cit. p. 273

[55] Archbishop Francis Kenrick, op. cit.

[56] S.C. Conc. March 27, 1683; S. Off. April 6, 1859; February 21, 1883.

[57] S.C. December 28, 1949.

[58] Nicholas Halligan, O.P., The Administration of the Sacraments, pp. 67-68. Staten Island: Alba House, 1965.

[59] Bishop Louis LaRavoire, S.T.D., My Catholic Faith, p. 255.

[60] Henry Davis, S.J;., Moral and Pastoral Theology, vol. 3, p. 25. London: Sheed and Ward, 1945.

[61] ibid.

[62] Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, op. cit.

[63] Summa., Suppl., Q 42, art. 1, ad 1:

[64] True consent should be absolute and express the intention of the will with regard to everything that is essential to marriage: the exclusive and perpetual right over each others bodies with regard to sexual union and procreation. (The intent to limit the number of children would be sinful, but not invalidating, unless this determination was the sine qua non for the marriage.) Protestant marriages are valid though of course there can be no requiement on their part to bring up their children in the Catholic Faith. The finer technicalities of canon law are beyond the purpose of this book.

[65] Documents on the Liturgy 1963-1979, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville Minnesota, 1982. No. 2973

[66] Clearly this is associated with the need for the husband to love his wife as the Christ loved the Church, for him in fact to be an alter Christus in the family which is in turn  patterned after the Church.

[67] L'Osservatore Romano, German edition of 27.8.82.

[68] Hirtenwort der deutschen Erzbishoefe und Bichoefe zur Neurodnung des Ehe-und Familienrechte, printed as a supplement to St. Korads Blatt, No. 10, 1953.

[69] So declared by the Holy Office with the approval of Pius XII (AAS 36, 1944, 103)

[70] I say, "untenable position," because they are forced to deny one or the other de fide teachings when they know that the Holy Ghost which guarantees the truth of de fide teachings cannot contradict himself.

[71] Cf. Paragraph 50, "The Church in the Modern World," The Documents of Vatican II; for John Paul II's teaching on marriage see Wigand Siebel's Philosophie et théologie de Karol Wojtyla, SAKA: Bâle, Switzerland.