The Post-Conciliar Ecumenism and the Great Discontinuity

One of the most debatable directions inaugurated by the Second Vatican Council is that in favor of ecumenism. In blatant contradiction to the Church’s constant Magisterial position regarding the positive reception of religious pluralism, this new teaching has become the dominant feature of post-conciliar Catholicism. Things have gone so far that, in addition to the formation of a special dicastery for the “promotion of Christian unity,” the obligation to promote ecumenism—primarily by bishops—has been inscribed in the Canon Law of the Catholic Church.^{^[i]} The way this was done casts enormous shadows both over the Second Vatican Council and the teachings of post-conciliar pontiffs. For example, in §1 of canon 755, we read the following:

“It pertains especially to the entire College of Bishops and to the Apostolic See to foster and direct among Catholics the ecumenical movement, the purpose of which is the restoration of unity between all Christians which, by the will of Christ, the Church is bound to promote.”^{^[ii]}

Canon Law does nothing more than reflect the teachings of the documents of the Second Vatican Council. If the article above tells us that this is “the will of Christ,” the conciliar decree on ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, had already stated that the Holy Spirit is the one who inspires the pursuit of unity. The rhetoric is the same, and the words used are just as categorical:

“The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council. Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only. However, many Christian communions present themselves to men as the true inheritors of Jesus Christ; all indeed profess to be followers of the Lord but differ in mind and go their different ways, as if Christ Himself were divided. Such division openly contradicts the will of Christ, scandalizes the world, and damages the holy cause of preaching the Gospel to every creature.

But the Lord of Ages wisely and patiently follows out the plan of grace on our behalf, sinners that we are. In recent times more than ever before, He has been rousing divided Christians to remorse over their divisions and to a longing for unity. Everywhere large numbers have felt the impulse of this grace, and among our separated brethren also there increases from day to day the movement, fostered by the grace of the Holy Spirit, for the restoration of unity among all Christians. This movement toward unity is called ‘ecumenical’.”^{^[iii]}

What we have read above reveals the profound rupture between the pre-conciliar and post-conciliar Magisterium. The assertion that the goal of the ecumenical movement is the restoration of Christian unity and that this represents nothing more and nothing less than “the will of Christ” raises several insurmountable dilemmas.

First of all, as we all know, the unity of the baptized strictly depends on the unity of their faith. The text says nothing about the heresies and schisms of those who have broken their relationship with the true Church. In fact, the text contains a premise that is difficult to perceive but incredibly insidious: it is camouflaged within the statement regarding the sinfulness of Christians. What we immediately notice—though it is not explicitly stated—is that this sinfulness, which has affected the unity of the Church, belongs to all—Catholics included. In other words, all Christian denominations are assumed to share some guilt, with none being impeccable. This implied idea is false. Why is it false? Although members of the Catholic Church can indeed be sinners, if they truly confess the supernatural Faith transmitted to them by the Church, they do not sin in any way that affects ecclesiastical unity. The name of that particular type of sins that affects the unity of the Church is unique: heresy. And whoever is guilty of the sin of heresy no longer belongs to the Church.

Most recently, this teaching was affirmed by Pope Pius XII in his famous encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi, article 23:

“For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”^{^[iv]}

It is absolutely wrong to speak of “unity” without addressing the heresies that cause divisions and, at the same time, the condition for restoring unity: orthodoxy (= the true, divinely revealed supernatural faith). This does not implicate Catholics but only those who do not recognize certain teachings of that faith. The mere suggestion, even implicitly, that members of the Catholic Church could be guilty of the same sins—heresies and schisms—as members of other communities that call themselves “Christians” while refusing to accept the entirety of supernatural Revelation is profoundly erroneous.

Faith unity is, therefore, conditioned by the full acceptance of divine Revelation. Do those communities that voluntarily, directly or indirectly, theoretically or practically, deny certain revealed dogmatic or moral teachings desire this? If God Himself tells us through the prophet Ezekiel, “I desire not the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way, and live” (Ezekiel 33:11), does this not imply that true conversion entails the acceptance of all supernatural/revealed God’s teachings?

How, then, can unity be restored with Christians who do not accept the faith in its entirety? Reframed, the question becomes: how can Christian unity be restored without restoring unity with the Church of Rome—the only one that fully preserves the true faith? And what should be—forever and always—the attitude of Catholics toward the much-acclaimed goal of unity? As recent posts on the 1Peter5 website during the Octave of Christian Unity have shown, there is only one answer: “to pray and work for the conversion of those outside of the True Faith (i.e., the Catholic Faith).”^{^[v]}

The most difficult and terrifying question we face when confronted with the post-conciliar Magisterium’s promotion of ecumenism is this: which Church should we obey? The one before the Council or the one after? For, as I will immediately show, there is a great discontinuity between the teaching on ecumenism professed before Vatican II and the post-conciliar teaching on Christian pluralism. This is why post-conciliar Popes and hierarchs have usually followed the same “policy” as in the case of the Gregorian Liturgy: they have done everything possible to conceal the pre-conciliar Church’s teachings, as if the Church had been born with Vatican II. Just as every effort was made to obscure the existence of the Mass of the Ages, everything was done to hide the pre-conciliar Magisterium’s teachings.

For anyone who has discovered the documents of popes like Pius IX, Pius X, Pius XI, or Pius XII, the shock is total. I myself went through the phase of a great revelation—I read, reread, and could not believe it. When, confused, I asked a priest about Pope Pius IX’s famous Syllabus of Errors (1864) and its teachings, the first thing he did was to express—visibly displeased—his regret that I was reading such “outdated” documents. Then, he tried to convince me—just as others later tried—that pre-Vatican II documents have no value and, in any case, are not authoritative. There is probably no need to emphasize the rather sophistical nature of such pseudo-arguments. For if we can discard the Church Magisterium’s teachings from previous eras into the dustbin of history, why should we not do the same with Vatican II’s teachings?

Returning to the initial question, I ask again: when we discover flagrant contradictions in this teaching, which one should we follow? And if we want to take our inquiries to the very root of the matter, here is the ultimate question: can we believe that the same Holy Spirit inspired contradictory teachings? For those who may still be unaware of the existence of the contradiction between the pre-Vatican II Magisterial teachings and those that followed, I will cite a few highly eloquent passages. I will begin with Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors, whose teachings, I assure you, hold full pontifical authority.

There are three consecutive articles in which the heresies concerning religious and Christian pluralism are condemned:

“16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.—Encyclical Qui pluribus, Nov. 9, 1846.

17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ.—Encyclical Quanto conficiamur, Aug. 10, 1863, etc.

18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church.—Encyclical Noscitis, Dec. 8, 1849.”^{^[vi]}

What is stated is as clear and unequivocal as possible. First, religious pluralism is denounced, and alternative soteriologies are firmly rejected. Then, it is shown that hope regarding those who are not in “the true Church of Christ” is—to say the least—highly risky. Finally, the claim that Protestantism is merely another fully legitimate form of the Christian religion is excluded. Furthermore, in article 21, the error of those who deny the Catholic Church’s right to affirm that it contains the authentic religion founded by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself is rejected:

“The Church has not the power of defining dogmatically that the religion of the Catholic Church is the only true religion.—Damnatio Multiplices inter, June 10, 1851.”

This last article cited from Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus expresses the foundational premise underlying all its assertions—the complete identity between the Christian Religion and the Catholic Church. Any possible “branch theory” (which claims that the Church of Christ is represented by the sum of all Christian denominations, each with its own particularities)^{^[vii]} is excluded, while the integrity of the Catholic Religion and Faith is affirmed without hesitation.

No document is more eloquent in rejecting ecumenism from the pre–Second Vatican Council Magisterium than Pope Pius XI’s 1928 encyclical Mortalium Animos. And no document stands in more blatant contradiction to what is asserted both in the decree Unitatis Redintegratio and in post-conciliar Code of Canon Law. For Pope Pius XI denounces ecumenism by insisting precisely on its essential illusion (i.e., error). After stating in article 3 that “some are more easily deceived by the outward appearance of good when there is question of fostering unity among all Christians,” the entire following article is dedicated to teachings that mislead the imprudent, who believe that unity can be achieved in any way other than by the conversion of the errant to the one true Christian (i.e., Catholic) religion:

“Is it not right, it is often repeated, indeed, even consonant with duty, that all who invoke the name of Christ should abstain from mutual reproaches and at long last be united in mutual charity? Who would dare to say that he loved Christ, unless he worked with all his might to carry out the desires of Him, Who asked His Father that His disciples might be ‘one.’ And did not the same Christ will that His disciples should be marked out and distinguished from others by this characteristic, namely that they loved one another: ‘By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another’? All Christians, they add, should be as ‘one:’ for then they would be much more powerful in driving out the pest of irreligion, which like a serpent daily creeps further and becomes more widely spread, and prepares to rob the Gospel of its strength. These things and others that class of men who are known as pan-Christians continually repeat and amplify; and these men, so far from being quite few and scattered, have increased to the dimensions of an entire class, and have grouped themselves into widely spread societies, most of which are directed by non-Catholics, although they are imbued with varying doctrines concerning the things of faith. This undertaking is so actively promoted as in many places to win for itself the adhesion of a number of citizens, and it even takes possession of the minds of very many Catholics and allures them with the hope of bringing about such a union as would be agreeable to the desires of Holy Mother Church, who has indeed nothing more at heart than to recall her erring sons and to lead them back to her bosom.”

Probably the vast majority of today’s Catholic ecumenists—whether they be Hierarchs, clergy, or ordinary laity—will find in the words above precisely the ideal they are pursuing. All the ecumenical meetings they participate in are based exactly on the premise of “unity.” After all, is it not stated in the declaration Unitatis Redintegratio that divisions among Christians “contradict the will of Christ, scandalize the world, and damage the holy cause of preaching the Gospel to every creature”? So how could one not desire their eradication? What reason could there be to reject such a beneficial endeavor and such a noble goal? Pope Pius XI, however, responds as follows:

“But in reality beneath these enticing words and blandishments lies hid a most grave error, by which the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed.”

If today, more and more Catholics are realizing the immense crisis affecting the very Catholic Faith itself, it is precisely due to the neglect of Pope Pius XI’s words. The widespread relativism and indifferentism are direct consequences of ecumenism—consequences that ultimately lead to only one outcome: the destruction of the Catholic Faith. Despite any appearances to the contrary, those who claim that God wills the existence of numerous Christian denominations and religions are not expressing the faith of the Church of Christ the Savior, but rather a counterfeit faith—one denounced by Pope Pius XI as a grave error with terrible consequences. And yet, the teachings of Popes such as Pius IX and Pius XI are no longer upheld by post-conciliar Popes.

Accustomed to the annual interdenominational prayer sessions held during the Octave of Christian Unity, the majority of Catholics in the post-conciliar Church never hear the teaching that the Catholic Church is the only Christian Church founded by our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. On the contrary, the only mantra repeatedly instilled in them is that “there is one God for all,” with its inevitable conclusion: it does not matter which “church” one belongs to. Aware of the dangers of such a widespread attitude, only one post-conciliar Pope attempted to correct (at least, partially) the deviations of Catholic ecumenism. As expected, it was the same Pope who sought to restore the Liturgy of the Ages to its rightful place: Benedict XVI.

While leading the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger drafted and published the most controversial document in the history of contemporary Catholic Magisterium: the Declaration DOMINUS IESUS on the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church. Issued in Rome on August 6, 2000, by the Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith), the declaration sparked an unexpected wave of reactions marked by extreme hostility and widespread opposition—both from the schismatic Eastern Churches and from Protestant and Evangelical communities. This response revealed just how misguided the Catholic Church’s ecumenical direction had been following the Second Vatican Council.

If doctrinal arguments highlighting the rupture between pre-conciliar and post-conciliar Magisterial teaching are not sufficient, the total failure reflected in the vehement reactions against the Catholic Church and the Dominus Iesus declaration proves not only the consequences of erroneous ecclesiological teachings but also the sheer lack of realism among those hierarchs and theologians who seem to believe that ecclesial unity is possible without unity in the Christian faith.

Excellent! I would offer only one clarification. In asserting that only those who hold heretical views can sin against Christian unity, the author fails to acknowledge that it wou ld also be a sin against Christian unity to insist on non essentials, or to refuse to acknowledge the orthodoxy of another Christian, and unity with them, over non essential beliefs or practices. One may argue that by doing so, for example, by insisting on liturgical uniformity, one is actually a heretic oneself. But I don’t believe that’s true. One could insist on uniformity out of arrogance, or out of disrespect for the legitimate freedom and heritage of others.

While I prefer the TLM, I usually attend Sunday Mass at a parish of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of Saint Peter, which is a diocese for parishes which have “swum the Tiber” from Protestantism to Catholicism. I have found these parishes and their clergy to be 100% orthodox. Yet many of them found it very difficult to make the swim because, before Pope Benedict’s motu proprio “Anglicanorum Coetibus”, they would have been required to attend the Novus Ordo, which they find to be “deficient,” to put it politely, and to give up certain beautiful and longstanding aspects of their liturgy which were in no way incompatible with the Catholic faith, and some of which are based on the ancient Sarum rite, which predates even the Tridentine Mass. Benedict could have chosen to say “too bad.” But instead, he found a creative solution, the Ordinariates.

Another very good, even ideal, but not absolutely necessary discipline is clerical celibacy. Benedict made it possible for these very orthodox Anglican clergy to become Catholic priests by waiving, on an individual basis, the requirement for priestly celibacy. I’m no fan of the idea of abandoning the general requirement of priestly celibacy. But in individual cases where it removes an obstacle for a group of Anglicans to unify with the Catholic Church without compromising the faith, it seems to me that charity would require such a move on the part of the Church, and that failure to do so, while in no way being heretical, would nevertheless be a sin against Christian unity.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

The Post-Conciliar Ecumenism and the Great Discontinuity

There is no other error (or, rather, sum of errors) as specifically (neo)modernist as the so-called “ecumenism.” This is why rejecting it and the relativism and indifferentism it generates is absolutely necessary.