From ecumenism to silent apostasy - 25 years of pontificate
Click here to download the pdf file 188 ko - 19 pages
INTRODUCTION
1. The 25th anniversary of the election of John-Paul II is an occasion to reflect upon the fundamental orientation that the Pope has given to his pontificate. In the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council, he has wished to place his pontificate under the sign of unity: “The restoration of unity of all Christians was one of the principal purposes of the Second Vatican Council (cf. UR nº 1) and since my election I have formally committed myself to promote and execute its norms and its orientations, considering as my primordial duty1.” For the Pope, this “restoration of the unity of Christians” is but one step towards a greater unity, that of the whole human family: “the unity of Christians is open to a unity ever more vast, that of all humanity2.”
2. As a result of this fundamental choice:
_ John Paul II has esteemed it a duty to “take into hand this conciliar magna charta, the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium3” which defines the Church as “a sacrament, that is to say, at the same time a sign and means of intimate union with God as well as of the unity of the entire human race4”. This “taking into hand” had been done in order to “better realize this vital communion in the Christ of all those who believe and hope in him, but also in order to contribute to a greater and stronger unity of the whole human family5”;
_ John Paul II has consecrated the essence of his pontificate to the fulfilment of this unity, by repeated interreligious meetings, acts of repentance and ecumenical gestures. This has also been the principal reason for his voyages: “they have allowed me to reach the particular Churches in every continent, prompting a sustained attention to the developing of ecumenical relations with the Christians of different confessions6”;
_ John Paul II has distinguished the Jubilee year 2000 by an ecumenical gesture7.
In all truthfulness, “one can say that all the activities of the local Churches and of the Apostolic See have had these last years an ecumenical inspiration8”. Twenty-five years have passed, the Jubilee has past, it is now the time of judgment.
3. For a long time, John Paul II has believed that his pontificate would be a new Advent9, permitting “the dawn of this new millennium to shine upon a Church that has found again her full unity10.” Thus the “dream” of the Pope will be realized: “that all the peoples of the world from different parts of the globe, coming together to unite themselves to the unique God as one whole family11”. But the reality is completely different: “The time in which we live seems to be an aberrant epoch where many men and women seem disoriented12”. There reigns over Europe a “sort of practical agnosticism and religious indifferentism” to such a degree that “European culture gives the impression of a ‘silent apostasy’13.” The ecumenism is not a stranger to this situation. This analysis of the thought of John Paul II (First Part) will show us that, not without a profound sadness, the ecumenical practices come from a no-catholic thought (Second Part) and lead to a “silent apostasy” (Third Part).
Chapter I
ANALYSIS OF THE ECUMENICAL THOUGHT
The Unity of the Human Race and Inter-religious dialogue
Christ, united to every man
4. The foundation of the thought of the Pope is found in the affirmation that states that “the Christ ‘has united himself in a certain way to all men of’ (Gaudium et Spes nº 22), even if these men are not aware of it14” John Paul II explains, actually, that the Redemption wrought by Christ is universal not only in the sense that it is superabundant for the entire human race, and that it is proposed to each of its members in particular, but especially that it is de facto applied to all men: if then, from one point of view, “in the Christ, religion is no longer a ‘search for God by trial and error’ (Acts 17, 27), but a response of the faith in God who reveals Himself […], a response made possible by this unique Man […] in whom every man is made capable to respond to God”. From another viewpoint, the Pope adds “that in this Man, whole creation responds to God15.” In actuality, “each man is included in the mystery of the Redemption and with each one Christ has united himself for ever through this mystery. […] That is, man in all the fullness of the mystery in which he has become a sharer in Jesus Christ, the mystery in which each one of the four thousand million human beings living on our planet has become a sharer from the moment he is conceived16.” In such a way that “in the Holy Spirit, each person and all peoples have become, by the Cross and resurrection of Christ, the children of God, participators in the divine nature and the heirs of eternal life17.”
The Meeting at Assisi
5. An immediate application of universality of the Redemption is the manner in which John Paul II treats the relations between the Church and other religions. If the commandment of unity previously described “is that which come from the creation and the redemption, and is thus, in this sense “divine”, these differences and these divergences, even religious, come rather from a ‘human consequence’18” which ought to be “left behind by the progress towards the realization of the grandiose design of unity which precedes the creation.19” From this follows the inter-faith meetings such as at Assisi, 27 October 1986, during which the Pope wanted to detect “in a visible way the fundamental but ridden unity which the divine Word […] has established amongst all men and all women of this world.20” By these acts, the Pope wishes to proclaim to the Church that “Christ is the fulfilment of the yearning of all the world’s religions and, as such, he is their sole and definitive completion21.”
The Church of Christ and Ecumenism
The Unique Church of Christ
6. The divine unity resting intact, the historical divisions come from that which is human; this double scheme is applied to the Church, considered as a communion. John Paul II distinguishes, in fact, the Church of Christ, the divine reality, and the different churches, fruits of “human divisions22”. The contours of the Church of Christ are fairly ill defined as they overflow the visible limits of the Catholic Church23. The Church of Christ is an interior reality24. The Church gathers together at least the entirety of Christians25, no matter what church they belong to: all are “disciples of Christ26”, “in a common membership to Christ27”; they “are one, because, in the Spirit, they are in the communion with the Son, and in Him, in communion with the Father28”. The Church of Christ is thus the Communion of Saints, above all divisions: “The Church is the Communion of Saints.29” In reality, “the communion in which Christians believe and hope in is a profound reality, their union with the Father by the Christ and in the Holy Ghost. Since the day of Pentecost, this union is given and received in the Church, the Communion of Saints30.”
The divisions in the Church
7. According to John Paul II, divisions in the Church which have happened during the course of history never affected the Church of Christ, that is to say that the fundamental unity of Christians amongst themselves has been left inviolate: “By the grace of God, that which belongs to the structure of the Church of Christ has not yet been destroyed, nor the communion which endures with the other churches and ecclesial communities31.” These divisions are in reality of another order, they only concern the manifestation of the communion of saints, that which makes it visible: the traditional bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments and the hierarchical communion. In refusing one or other of these bonds, the separated Churches interfere only with the interests of the visible communion with the Catholic Church, and this only partially: this said communion is lesser or greater according to the number of ties that have been safeguarded. One thus speaks of the imperfect communion between the separated churches and the Catholic Church, the communion of all in the unique Church of Christ remaining intact32. The term “sister-churches” is often used33.
8. According to this conception, that which unites the different Christian Churches is greater than that which separates them34: “The common spiritual dimension surpasses all the confessional barriers which separates us from each other35”. This spiritual dimension, such is the Church of Christ. If this Church only “subsists36” “in an unique subject37” in the Catholic Church, she keeps at the least an “active presence” in the separated communities in reason of the “elements of sanctification and truth38” which are present in them. This alleged common spiritual dimension John Paul II wished to ratify by the publication of a martyrology common to the churches: “The ecumenism of the saints, of the martyrs, is perhaps that which is the most convincing. The voice of the communion of saints is stronger than that of the troublemakers of division39.”
Neither absorption nor fusion, but reciprocal giving
9. From this, “the ultimate end of the ecumenical movement” is only “the reestablishment of the full visible unity of all the baptized40.” A unity so conceived will no longer be realized by the “ecumenism of return41”: “We reject this method of searching for unity. […] The pastoral action of the Catholic Church, both Latin and Eastern, no longer tries to make the faithful pass from one Church to another42.” In fact this would forget two things:
_ -These divisions, which Vatican II analyzes as a breach of charity43, are attributable to both parties: “Evoking the division of Christians, the Decree on Ecumenism does not ignore ‘the fault of men of either parties’, recognizing that the responsibility cannot be attributed ‘only to the other party (Unitatis Redintegratio, n° 3)’44.”
_ -Ecumenism is also a “exchange of gifts45” between the churches: “The exchange of complementary gifts between the churches makes the communion fruitful46.” This is the reason why the unity desired by John Paul II “is neither absorption nor fusion47.” Applying this principle to the relations between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox, the Pope develops this idea: “Today, the two sister-churches of the East and West understand that without a mutual understanding of the profound underlying reasons which characterize the understanding of each of them, without a reciprocal giving of the treasures of the genius they carry, the Church of Christ cannot manifest the full maturity which she had received from the beginning, in the cenacle48.”
The Recomposition of the Visible Unity
10. “Just as in a family the eventual discords ought to leave their place to the recomposition of unity, so also one should do the same for the vast family of the whole Christian community49.” This exceeding of human dissensions by the recomposition of the visible unity is the methodology of the Pope. One must apply this methodology to the traditional three bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments and the hierarchical communion, seeing that these are what constitute the visibility of this unity.
Unity of the Sacraments
11. One knows how Paul VI has applied this method in the sacraments: in the successive liturgical reforms which applied the conciliar decrees, “the Church has been guided […] by the desire to do everything to help our separated brethren on the way to union, taking away the stones that could be even the shadow of a risk of stumbling or displeasure50.”
12. The obstacle of a Catholic liturgy expressing too much dogma being thus put aside, there remains the problems posed by the liturgies of the separated communities to be overcome. The reform thus gives place to recognition: the Assyrian anaphora (Nestorian) of Addaï and Mari was declared valid by a document clearly approved by John Paul II, in spite of the fact hat it does not contain the words of consecration51.
Unity in the Profession of Faith
13. In what concerns matters of faith, John Paul II considers that “the polemics and the intolerant controversies have often transformed into incompatible affirmations of what was in fact the result of two researches investigating the same reality, two different points of view. Today we must find the formula that, taking hold of this reality in its integrity, permits us to overcome the half-reading and to eliminate erroneous interpretations52.” This demands a certain latitude in respect to the dogmatic formulas used by the Church up until now. One must resort to historical relativism, in order to make the dogmatic formulas depend on their epoch: “The truths which the Church really understands to teach by her dogmatic formulas are without a doubt distinct from the changing concepts proper to a determined epoch; but it is not excluded that they might possibly be formulated, even by the Magisterium, in terms which carry some traces of such concepts53.”
14. Two applications of these principles are often pointed out as examples. In the case of the Nestorian heresy, John Paul II judges that “the divisions which came about were in large measure due to misunderstandings54.” In effect, if the principle which states that “In the first place, with regard to doctrinal formulations which differ from those normally in use in the community to which one belongs, it is certainly right to determine whether the words involved say the same thing55” is clear, the practical application is embezzled. From this follows the recognition of the Christological faith of the Eastern Assyrian Church without any demand that they adhere to the formula of the Council of Ephesus, that Mary is the Mother of God56. Even more characteristic is the common declaration with the World Lutheran Federation. Its solicitude was not to state the faith and to stay clear of error, but only to find a formulation suitable to escape the anathemas of the Council of Trent: “This common declaration carries the conviction that the surpassing of condemnations and questions of momentary controversy does not signify that the separations and condemnations be treated lightly or that the past of each our ecclesial traditions be disavowed. Nonetheless, this declaration carries the conviction that a new discernment of the history of our Churches has occurred57.” Cardinal Kasper summarized it simply with the commentary: “Where we had at first sight a contradiction, we can now see a complementary position58.”
The hierarchical communion
15. As far as the Petrine ministry is concerned, the desires of the pontiff are known: to find, in harmony with the pastors and theologians of different Churches, “the forms in which this ministry could realize a service of love recognized by each59.” Thus is introduced the standard of the necessitas Ecclesiae , understood today as the realization of the unity of Christians, to palliate that which in the exercise of the petrinian ministry could become an obstacle to ecumenism.
16. According to Cardinal Kasper, this proceeding does not suffice. One must overcome the obstacles present in the separated communities, for example the decreed invalidity of Anglican orders61. The course that he proposes for this is a redefining of the concept of Apostolic succession, no longer “in the sense of a historical chain of the imposition of hands going back centuries to the Apostles – this vision would be a very individualistic and mechanical” but rather as “a collegial participation in a college which, as a whole, goes back to the Apostles by a sharing in the same apostolic faith and the same apostolic mission62.
Chapter II
THE DOCTRINAL PROBLEMS POSED BY THE ECUMENISM63
17. The ecumenical practice of this Pontificate is entirely established upon the distinction between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church. This division permits to assert that if the visible communion has been injured by ecclesiastical divisions, the communion of saints, considered as the sharing of spiritual goods in a common union with Christ, has not been broken. Yet this affirmation does not correspond to the Catholic faith.
The Church of Christ is the Catholic Church
18. One cannot distinguish the Church of Christ from the Catholic Church as this ecumenical practice presupposes. By the very fact that the Church is considered as an interior reality, this “Church, Body of Christ”, really distinct from the Catholic Church, rejoins the protestant notion of a “Church invisible to us, visible only to the eyes of God64”. This notion is contrary to the invariable teaching of the Church. For example, Leo XIII, speaking of the Church, affirms: “It is because [the Church] is a body that she is visible to our eyes65.” Pius XI does not say anything different: “Christ Our Lord, has established His Church as a perfect society, exterior by nature and perceptible to the senses66.” Pius XII thus concludes: “It is to depart from the divine truth to imagine one Church which cannot be seen nor touched, which would be only ‘spiritual’ (pneumaticum), into which the numerous Christian communities, even though separated by the faith, could nonetheless be reunited by an invisible bond67.”
19. The Catholic faith thus obliges to affirm the identity of the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church. Pius XII thus identifies “the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ” to “this veritable Church of Jesus Christ – Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman68”. Before Pius XII, the Magisterium had affirmed: “There is no other Church but that which built upon Peter alone, in one body joined and convoked together [‘visible’ understood], rising up in the unity of the faith and charity69.” Lastly, let us call to mind the exclamation of Pius IX: “There is only one true and holy religion, founded and instituted by Christ, Our Lord. Mother and nurse of virtue, destroyer of vice, liberator of souls, guide of true happiness; she is called: Catholic, Apostolic, Roman70.” Following a constant and universal magisterium, the first preparatory schema of Vatican I was going to put forward this condemnatory canon: “If any says that the Church, who has received the divine promises, is a external and visible society of the faithful, but only a spiritual society of the predestined or of the just known only to God, let him be anathema71.”
20. By consequence, the proposition of Cardinal Kasper which states: “The true nature of the Church – the Church in so far as the Body of Christ – is hidden and can only be grasped by the faith72” is certainly heretical. To add that “this nature perceived only by the faith is realized under visible forms: in the proclaimed Word, by the administration of the sacraments, and the ministry of Christian service73” is insufficient to account for the visibility of the Church: “To become visible” – by only simple acts – is not “to be visible”.
Belonging to the Church by a Triple Unity
21. Seeing that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church, one cannot affirm, as the supporters of ecumenism, that the triple union of faith, sacraments and hierarchical communion is only necessary to the visible communion of the Church. This assertion is taken in the sense that the absence of one of these bonds, though manifesting a rupture in the visible communion of the Church, does not signify a vital separation from the Church. On the contrary, one must affirm that these three bonds are constitutive of the unity of the Church, not in the sense that just one could unite to the Church, but of the fact that if just one of these three bonds is lacking in re vel saltem in voto74, one would be separated from the Church and would not benefit from her supernatural life. This is what the Catholic faith obliges to believe, as that which follows will show.
Unity of the Faith
22. If the necessity of the faith is admitted by all75, we must state precisely the nature of this faith which is necessary for salvation, and which is thus constitutive of belonging to the Church. The faith is not “this intimate sentiment begotten by the need of the divine” denounced by Saint Pius X76, but rather as that described by the First Vatican Council: “a supernatural virtue by which, under the inspiration and the aid of the grace of God, we believe that which He has revealed to us to be true: we believe it, not because of the intrinsic truth of the things seen by the natural light of our reason, but because of the very authority of God who has revealed us these truths, who can neither deceive nor be deceived77.” For this reason whoever refuses but one truth of the faith known to be revealed loses completely the faith which is indispensable for salvation: “Anyone who, even of only one point, refuses to really assent to the truths divinely revealed renounces entirely the faith, because he refuses to submit himself to God as the Sovereign Truth, the very motif of the faith78.”
Unity of Government
23. “In order to guard forever intact in His Church this unity of faith and of doctrine, He [the Christ] chose a man amongst all the others, Peter…79”: so Pius IX introduces the necessity of unity to the chair of Peter, “a dogma of our divine religion which has always been preached, defended, affirmed with one heart and one unanimous voice by the Fathers and Councils of all time.” Following the Fathers, the same Pope develops: “it is from this [chair of Peter] from which flow all the rights of divine union80; he who separates himself from her cannot hope to stay in the Church81, he who partakes of the Lamb outside of her does not have part with God82.” Whence this celebrated sentence of Saint Augustine addressed to the schismatics: “That which belongs to you, is your impiety to separate yourselves from us; if, for all the rest, you think and you possess the truth, in persevering in your separation […] you lack that which lacks in him who has not charity83.”
Unity of the Sacraments
24. “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved84.” By these words of Our Lord, all recognize the necessity, besides the unity of the faith and the end, of a “community of means appropriate to the end85” in order to constitute the unity of the Church: the sacraments. Such is the “Catholic Church [which Christ instituted], bought by His Blood, as the unique dwelling of the living God, […] the unique Body animated and vivified by a unique Spirit, kept harmoniously together by the unity of the faith, hope and charity, by the bonds of the sacraments, of worship and of doctrine86.”
Conclusion
25. The necessity of this triple bond thus obliges us to believe that “whoever refuses to listen to the Church ought to be considered, according to the command of the Lord, ‘as a pagan and a publican’ (Mt 18, 17) and those who have disunited themselves for reasons of faith or of government cannot live in this same Body nor by consequence live by this same divine Spirit87.”
Outside of the Church, no Salvation
Are non-catholics members of the Church?
26. In consequence of that which has been said, the following proposition “those [born outside of the Catholic Church not being able to ‘be accused of the sin of division’] who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect” to the point that “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 Church” even though “the differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church – whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church – do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones88” must be attentively examined; if this proposition is understood to speak of those who continue in these differences knowingly, it is contrary to the Catholic faith. The clause affirming “they cannot be accused of the sin of involved in the separation” is at least a rash statement: remaining exteriorly in dissidence, there is nothing that indicates that they do not adhere to the separation of their predecessors, the appearances speak rather the contrary. To presume their good faith is not possible89, as Pius IX states: “It is of faith that outside of the Apostolic and Roman Church, no one can be saved. […] Nonetheless, it must be recognized also that with certitude, that those who are invincibly ignorant of the true religion are not culpable before the Lord. But now who truly will go in his presumption to mark the boundaries of this ignorance?90”
Are there elements of sanctification and truth in the separated communities?
27. The affirmation that “a number of elements of sanctification and of truth91” are found outside of the Church is equivocal. This proposition implies in effect the sanctifying power of the means of salvation materially present in the separated Communities. But this cannot be affirmed without distinction. Amongst these elements, those which do not require a specific disposition on the part of the subject – the baptism of a child for instance – are effectively salutary in the sense that they produce grace efficaciously in the soul of the baptized, who thereby belongs to the Catholic Church without need of sanction to such a degree that he has not reached the age of personal choice92. For the other elements, which require the dispositions on the part of the subject in order to be efficacious, one must say that they are salutary only in the measure in which the subject is already a member of the Church by his implicit desire. This is what the councils have affirmed: “She [the Church] professes that the unity of the body of the Church has such a power that the sacraments of the Church are only useful for the salvation of those who dwell in Her93.” Yet in so far as they are separated, these communities are opposed to this implicit desire that renders the sacraments fruitful. Thus one cannot say that these communities possess elements of sanctification and truth, except materially.
Does the Holy Ghost use the separated communities as a means of salvation? The so-called “sister-churches”
28. One cannot affirm that “the Spirit of Christ does not refuse to use them [the separated communities] as a means of salvation94.” Saint Augustin affirms: “There is but one Church, who alone is called Catholic, and it is she who begets by virtue of that which remains her property in those sects who are separated from her unity, no matter who possesses them95.” The only thing that these separated communities can realize by their own power, is the separation of these souls from ecclesial unity, as again Saint Augustine indicates: “It [baptism] does not belong to you. That which is yours are your bad sentiments and sacrilegious practices, and that you have the impiety to separate yourselves from us96.” In the degree in which this assertion of the Council contradicts the affirmation that the Catholic Church is the unique possessor of the means of salvation, it approaches heresy. If, in according a “significance and a value in the mystery of salvation97”, it recognizes in these separated communities a quasi-legitimacy – such as the expression “sister-churches98” makes understood – this assertion is opposed to the catholic doctrine because it denies the unicity of the Catholic Church.
Is that which unites us greater than that which separates us?
29. If the separated Communities are not formally speaking holders of the elements of sanctification and truth – such as was said above – the proposition which states that that which unites the Catholics to dissidents is greater than that which separates them is true materially speaking, in the sense that all of these elements are references that could serve as a base for discussions that would bring them back to the fold. This assertion nonetheless cannot be formally true, and this is why Saint Augustine says: “In many things they are with me, only in a few they are not with me; but because of these few points they have separated themselves from me, it doesn’t mean anything that they be with me with all the rest99.”
Conclusion
30. The ecumenism, could only be likened to the “Branch Theory100” condemned by the Magisterium: “Its foundation […] is such that it overturns from top to bottom the divine constitution of the Church” and its prayer for unity, “from its highest point stained and infected by heresy, absolutely cannot be tolerated101.”
Chapter III
THE PASTORAL PROBLEMS POSED BY THE ECUMENISM
31. Besides the fact that it depends on heterodox theses, the ecumenism is harmful for souls, in the sense that it relativizes the Catholic faith indispensable for salvation, and it deters from the Catholic Church, the unique ark of salvation. The Catholic Church no longer acts as the lighthouse of truth that enlightens hearts and dissipates error, but rather submerges humanity in the fog of religious indifferentism, and soon into the darkness of the “silent apostasy102”.
The Ecumenism begets relativism of the faith
It relativizes the harmful breaks made by the heretics
32. Ecumenical dialogue dissimulates the sin against the faith that heresy commits – the formal reason for the rupture – in order to emphasize the sin against charity, imputed arbitrarily to the heretic as well as the child of the Church. It ends up finally denying the sin against the faith that constitutes heresy. So John Paul II affirms, concerning the monophysite heresy: “The divisions which have occurred were due largely to misunderstandings103”, adding: “the doctrinal formulations which separate them from the formulas in use […] concern the same content104.” Such affirmations disavow the Magisterium nonetheless infallible in condemning these heresies.
It pretends that the faith of the Church can be perfected by the “riches” of the others
33. Even if the Second Vatican Council specifies, in well moderated terms, the nature of the “enrichment” given by dialogue – “truer knowledge and more just appreciation of the teaching and religious life of both communions105” – the ecumenical practice of this Pontificate distorts this affirmation into an enrichment of the faith. The Church abandons a partial view in order to grasp the reality in its integrity: “The polemics and the intolerant controversies have often transformed into incompatible affirmations that which was in fact the result of two researches investigating the same reality, two different points of view. Today we must find the formula that, taking hold of this reality in its integrity, permits us to overcome the half-reading and to eliminate erroneous interpretations106.” And so it is that “the exchange of gifts between the Churches, in their complementarities, renders the communion fruitful107.” If these affirmations presuppose that the Church is not definitively and integrally the guardian of the treasure of the faith, they are not in conformity with the traditional doctrine of the Church. This is why the Magisterium warned against this false valorization of the supposed riches of the other churches: “In coming back to the Church, they lose nothing of the good which by the grace of God is realized in them up till now, but rather by their return this good will be completed and lead to perfection. Nonetheless one will avoid speaking of this in such a way as to imply that on coming back to the Church they imaging giving an essential element to her that was missing until now108.”
It relativizes the adhesion to certain dogmas of the faith
34. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the faith has certainly reorganized the supposed “hierarchy of the truths in Catholic Doctrine109”: this hierarchy “signifies that certain dogmas are based on others, more fundamental, which illumine them. But all these dogmas being revealed, each must be believed with the same divine faith110.” Yet the ecumenical practice of John Paul II is independent of this authentic interpretation. For example, in his address to the Evangelical “Church”, he underlines “that which is important”: “You know that during several decades, my life has been marked by the experience of the challenges which atheism and incredulity launch against Christianity. I have all the more clearly before my eyes that which is important: our common profession in Jesus Christ. […] Jesus Christ is our salvation, for all. […] By the force of the Holy Spirit, we become His brethren, truly and essentially children of God. […] Thanks to the consideration of the Confession of Augsburg and of numerous reunions, we have newly become aware of the fact that we believe and that we profess this together111.” Leo XIII had only condemnation for this sort of ecumenical practice, which finds its apotheosis in the Declaration on Justification: “They believe that it is opportune, in order to gain the hearts of those who have wandered, to relativise certain points of doctrine as being of less importance, or to mollify the sense to such an extent that they no longer understand them in the sense that the Church has always held. There is no need of many words to show how much this concept is condemnable112.”
It permits a “permanent reform” of dogmatic formulas
35. The latitude that the ecumenical practice gives itself concerning dogmatic formulas has already been said. It only remains to show the importance of this procedure in the ecumenical process: “The deepening of the communion in a constant reform, realized by the light of the Apostolic Tradition is without doubt one of the most important and distinctive characteristics of ecumenism. […] The decree on ecumenism (UR nº6) mentions the way of formulating doctrine as one of the elements of continuing reform113.” Such a procedure has been condemned by Pius XII : “In theology some want to reduce to a minimum the meaning of dogmas; and to free dogma itself from terminology long established in the Church and from philosophical concepts held by Catholic teachers. […] It is evident […] from what We have already said, that such tentatives not only lead to what they call dogmatic relativism, but that they actually contain it. […] Everyone is aware that the terminology employed in the schools and even that used by the Teaching Authority of the Church itself is capable of being perfected and polished; […] It is also manifest that the Church cannot be bound to every system of philosophy that has existed for a short space of time. Nevertheless, the things that have been composed through common effort by Catholic teachers over the course of the centuries to bring about some understanding of dogma are certainly not based on any such weak foundation. […] Hence it is not astonishing that some of these notions have not only been used by the Ecumenical Councils, but even sanctioned by them, so that it is wrong to depart from them114.”
It refuses to teach without ambiguity the integral content of the Catholic faith
36. The ecumenical axiom that states “The way and method in which the Catholic faith is expressed should never become an obstacle to dialogue with our brethren115” succeeds in solemnly signed common declarations that are equivocal and ambivalent. In the Common Declaration on Justification for example, the infusion of sanctifying grace116 in the soul of the just is never clearly taught; the only sentence that makes some allusion is so awkward that it could leave the opposite to be believed: “Justifying grace never becomes a human possession to which one could appeal against God117.” Such practices no longer respect the duty to teach the Catholic faith integrally and without ambiguity, as something “to be believed”: “Catholic Doctrine must be proposed integrally and in its entirety; one must not pass over in silence or hide in ambiguous terms that which the Catholic truth teaches on the true nature and the stages of justification, on the constitution of the Church, on the primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, on the true union by the return of separated Christians to the unique true Church of Christ118.”
It puts on an equal level the authentic saints and the pretended “saints”.
37. In publishing a common martyrology of the different Christian confessions, John Paul II puts on an equal level the authentic saints and the supposed “saints”. This forgets the words of Saint Augustine: “If, remaining separated from the Church, he is persecuted by an enemy of Christ […] and this enemy of Christ says to him who is separated from the Church of Christ: ‘offer up incense to idols, adore my gods’ and kills him because he refuses, he could shed his blood, but not receive the crown119.” If the Church hopes piously that the separated brother dies for the Christ with perfect charity, she cannot affirm this. By her just rights, she presumes that the ‘obex’, the obstacle of visible separation, was an obstacle to the act of perfect charity that is the essence of martyrdom. She thus cannot canonize him nor inscribe him in the martyrology120.
It provokes a loss of the faith
38. Relativist, evolutionist and ambiguous, this ecumenism directly induces the loss of the faith. Its first victim is the President of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Unity of Christians, Cardinal Kasper himself, when he affirms for example on the subject of justification that “Our personal worth does not depend on our woks, whether they are good or bad: even before acting, we are accepted and we have received the ‘yes’ of God121”; again concerning the Mass and the priesthood that “it is not the priest who works the transubstantiation: the priest prays to the Father in order that He become present by the operation of the Holy Spirit. […] The necessity of the ordained ministry is a sign that suggests and gives a taste of the gratuity of the Eucharistic sacrament122.”
The Ecumenism pushes souls away from the Church
39. Not only does this ecumenism destroy the Catholic faith, it also pushes heretics, schematics and infidels away from the Church.
It no longer demands the conversion of heretics and schismatics
40. The ecumenical movement no longer searches for their conversion and their return to the “unique fold of Christ, outside of which are certainly those who are not united to the Holy See of Peter123.” This is clearly stated: “We reject [uniatism] as a method to find unity. […] The pastoral action of the Catholic Church, both Latin and Eastern no longer tends to make the faithful pass from one church to another124.” From this follows the suppression of the ceremony of abjuration in the case of a heretic returning to the Catholic Church. Cardinal Kasper goes very far in these kind of affirmations: “Ecumenism is not done by renouncing our own faith tradition. No Church can practice this renouncement125.” He adds as well: “We can describe the ‘ethos’ proper to ecumenism in the following fashion: the renouncement to every form of proselytism whether open or camouflaged126.” This is radically opposed to the constant practice of the Popes throughout the centuries, who have always worked for the return of dissidents to the unique Church127.
It begets egalitarianism between the Christian confessions
41. The ecumenical practice engenders egalitarianism between the Catholics and other Christians, for example when John Paul II rejoices in the fact that “the expression ‘separated brethren’ tends to be substituted by terms more apt to evoke the profundity of the communion linked to the baptismal character. […] The consciousness of a common belonging to Christ deepens. […] The ‘universal brotherhood’ of Christians has become a strong ecumenical conviction128.” And moreover, the Catholic Church Herself is practically put on equal footing with the separated Communities: we have already made mention of the expression “sister-churches”; John Paul II rejoices also that “the Directory for the application of the principles and the norms concerning ecumenism calls the communities to which these Christians of ‘the Churches and the ecclesial communities who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church’. […] Relegating to oblivion the excommunications of the past, the communities, once rivals, today help each other129.” To rejoice because of this is to forget that “to recognize the quality of a Church the schism of Photius and that of the Anglicans […] favors religious indifferentism […] and stops the conversion of non-Catholics to the true and unique Church130.”
It humbles the Church and makes haughty the dissidents
42. The ecumenical practice of repentance deters the infidels from the Catholic Church, in view of the false image that she gives of herself. If it is possible to carry before God the fault of those who have preceded us131, on the other hand the practice of repentance such as we know it leaves it believed that it is the Catholic Church as such who is sinner, seeing that it is her who asks pardon. The first to believe this is Cardinal Kasper: “The Second Vatican Council recognized that the Catholic Church had been responsible for the division of Christians and underlined that the reestablishing of unity presupposed the conversion of each to the Lord132”. The justifying texts thus don’t mean a thing: the ecclesial note of holiness, so powerful to attract wandering souls to the unique fold, has been tarnished. These repentances are thus gravely imprudent, because they humiliate the Catholic Church and make haughty the dissidents. From which the Holy Office warns: “They [the bishops] in teaching the history of the Reform and the Reformers, will carefully avoid, and with a real insistence, not to exaggerate the defects of Catholics and to hide the faults of the Reformers, or to put into light some elements mostly accidental such as not to see or no longer perceive that which is essential, the defection from the Catholic faith133.”
Conclusion
43. Considered from a pastoral aspect, one must say that the ecumenism of the last decades that it leads Catholics to a “silent apostasy” and that it dissuades non-Catholics from entering into the unique ark of salvation. One must reprobate “the impiety of those who close to men the gates of the Kingdom of heaven134”. Under the guise of searching for unity, this ecumenism disperses the flock; it does not carry the mark of Christ, but that of the divider par excellence, the devil.
GENERAL CONCLUSION
44. As attractive as it may first seem, as spectacular as his ceremonies might be watch on the Television, as numerous as the gathered crowds might be, the reality remains: the ecumenism has made of the Holy City the Church a city in ruins. Following a utopian ideal – the unity of the human race – the Pope has not realized how much this ecumenism which he has pursued is truly and sadly revolutionary: it inverts the order willed by God.
45. Ecumenism is revolutionary, and it affirms itself as revolutionary. One remains impressed by the succession of texts that remind us of this: “The deepening of communion in a constant reform […] is without a doubt one of the most important and distinctive traits of ecumenism135.” “On taking the idea which John XIII had expressed at the opening of the Council, the Decree on ecumenism represents the formulation of doctrine as one of the elements of continuing reform136.” At times this affirmation is adorned with ecclesiastical unction in order to become a “conversion”. In the case in point, there is very little difference. In the two cases, that which existed before is rejected: “ ‘Convert’. There is no ecumenical reconciliation without conversion and renewal. There is no conversion from one confession to another. […] Everyone must convert. We must not ask firstly ‘what is wrong with the other’, but rather ‘what is wrong with us; where should we begin to clean house?’137” Typical of its revolutionary characteristic, this ecumenism makes an appeal to the people: “In ecumenical activity, the faithful of the Catholic Church […] will consider, with loyalty and attention, all that has need to be renovated in the catholic family itself138.” Truly in this aggiornamento, this state of intoxication, the head has need to be overrun by the members: “The ecumenical movement is a somewhat complex process, and it would be an error to wait, from the catholic side, that everything be done by Rome. […] The intuitions, the challenges must also come from local Churches, and much must be done on a local level before the universal Church makes it her own139.”
46. In these sorrowful circumstances, how can we not hear the cry of the Angel at Fatima: “Penance, Penance, Penance”? In this utopian dream, the coming back to good sense must be radical. One must come back to the wise experience of the Church, synthesized by Pope Pius XI: “The union of Christians cannot be attained other than by favoring the return of dissidents to the only true Church of Christ, which they have had the misfortune of leaving140.” Such is the true and charitable pastoral action for those who err, such ought to be the prayer of the Church: “We desire that the common prayer of the whole Mystical Body [that is to say, the whole Catholic Church] rise towards God in order that all the wandering sheep rejoin the unique fold of Jesus Christ141.”
47. Waiting for this happy hour when reason will return, we keep for our part the wise advice and the firm wisdom that we have received from our founder: “We wish to be in perfect unity with the Holy Father, but in the unity of the Catholic faith, because it is only this unity that can unite us, and not a sort of ecumenical union, a sort of liberal ecumenism; because I believe that the crisis in the Church is best defined by this liberal ecumenical spirit. I say liberal ecumenism, because there does exist a certain ecumenism that, if it is well defined, could be acceptable. But liberal ecumenism, such as it is practice by the present Church and especially since the Second Vatican Council, includes veritable heresies142.” Adding to this our prayers to heaven, where we implore Christ for His Body which is the Catholic Church, saying: “Salvum me fac, Domine, quoniam defecit sanctus, quoniam diminutæ sunt veritates a filiis hominum. Vana locuti sunt unusquisque ad proximum suum : labia dolosa il corde et corde locuti sunt. Disperdat Dominus universa labia dolosa et linguam magniloquam143.”