Guest Article: The Crisis of Modern Ecumenism

Rorate Caeli ^ | the Canon of Shaftesbury, a prominent canonist in a major archdiocese.

[ebb tide]

Guest Article: The Crisis of Modern Ecumenism

The modern ecumenical movement, particularly in its post-conciliar manifestation, has adopted a dangerous illusion: that the various Christian denominations represent equally valid paths to God, differing merely in accidental rather than essential characteristics. This irenic approach, pursued with increasing fervour since the Second Vatican Council, fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the Church established by Christ; the Catholic Church, built sub Petro et cum Petro. Pope Pius XI, in his 1928 encyclical Mortalium Animos, provided a prophetic critique of this very tendency, warning against a false irenicism that would compromise the integrity of Catholic truth for the sake of a superficial unity. Nearly a century later, his warnings remain not only relevant but crucial, as the fruits of the ecumenical project have proven meagre while the confusion sown among the faithful has grown exponentially.

The Foundational Error: Denominational Equivalence

The central problem plaguing contemporary ecumenism is its implicit acceptance of ecclesiological relativism. By treating separated Christian communities as though they possessed equal claims to authenticity, the movement obscures the fundamental Catholic teaching that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church in its fullness. This is not mere triumphalism but theological necessity. Christ established one Church, not a confederation of equally legitimate expressions of Christianity. When you dilute doctrine for the sake of getting along, you’re not building bridges; you’re building a house on sand and calling it interfaith cooperation.

The assumption underlying much ecumenical dialogue; that corporate reunion will naturally emerge from emphasizing similarities while diplomatically ignoring differences has proven bankrupt. Decades of joint declarations, theological commissions, and fraternal gestures have not brought us measurably closer to visible communion. This failure is not accidental but inevitable, for it proceeds from a flawed premise: that doctrinal truth is negotiable or that genuine unity can exist without unity in faith.

The Orthodox Question: Theological, Not Grammatical

The relationship with the Orthodox Churches presents a particularly instructive case. Some have said in their eagerness to minimize obstacles, that the difficulties separating Rome and Constantinople are ‘grammatical rather than theological.’ This is a dangerous notion that forgets profound doctrinal disagreements. The question of the Petrine ministry, the primacy and universal jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff is not a matter of linguistic nuance but of ecclesiological substance.

The Orthodox petition on papal primacy asks Rome to surrender what it cannot surrender without betraying the divine constitution of the Church. Some within the Church seem willing to accommodate these demands, forgetting that mercy toward error is no mercy at all. Previous popes have wisely recognized these boundaries, understanding that authentic unity cannot be purchased at the price of truth.

Moreover, the Orthodox position conveniently forgets the first millennium of Christianity under the Pentarchy, when papal intervention repeatedly preserved orthodoxy. At the Council of Chalcedon, when Christological clarity hung in the balance, the assembled fathers proclaimed, “Peter has spoken thus through Leo.” This was not mere rhetorical flourish but recognition of the Petrine office as the final arbiter of doctrinal disputes. The subsequent history of the Orthodox and Oriental Churches, plagued by Caesaropapism and doctrinal confusion in the absence of effective papal oversight, demonstrates the practical necessity of the very office they now reject.

The issue of the Filioque provides another helpful example. We recently commemorated seventeen hundred years since the Council of Nicaea, which gave us the Nicene Creed. It was with considerable consternation that one observed, in various ecumenical celebrations, the omission of the Filioque from the common recitation of the Creed. This is nothing other than an accommodation to Orthodox sensibilities that implicitly treats a legitimate development of doctrine as though it were an unfortunate addition. The Filioque is not a formulation to be apologized for but a clarification of Trinitarian theology that emerged from the Church’s deepening understanding of revealed truth. Its omission in the name of ecumenical sensitivity sends a message that doctrinal precision matters less than feelings, that truth itself is a matter of “approach.”

The constant production of joint statements with Orthodox and Oriental churches has not healed the schism because it cannot. The wound is theological, rooted in fundamentally incompatible ecclesiologies, that emerged from their separation from Peter, and no amount of carefully crafted language can bridge that abyss unless the Orthodox and Oriental Churches have the humility to recognize their drift.

The Protestant Problem: Justification and Its Discontents

If the difficulties with Orthodoxy are challenging, those separating Catholics from the Protestant world are even more challenging. Protestant theology rests upon a fundamental misunderstanding of grace and original sin, particularly concerning justification. The Lutheran formulation, captured in the metaphor of the “snow-covered dunghill” (simul justus et peccator), presents grace as imputed: an external declaration that covers but does not transform the sinner. By contrast, Catholic theology understands grace as infused, a sanctifying reality that internally cleanses and genuinely transforms the soul, removing sin rather than merely covering it.

This is not a simple disagreement but strikes at the heart of how we as Catholics understand salvation. The Lutheran position, whatever its psychological origins (and it is well documented that Luther suffered severe and ongoing episodes of depression and spiritual anguish that significantly influenced his theological thought, especially in his emphasis on the bondage of the will) ultimately presents a misunderstood Gospel that leaves the human person fundamentally unchanged by grace. No joint declaration can cover this gulf without one party or the other abandoning its core convictions.

Furthermore, the subsequent trajectory of Protestant communities demonstrates the instability inherent in their founding principles. The proliferation of denominations, each claiming guidance by the Holy Spirit yet reaching contradictory conclusions, reveals the incoherence of sola scriptura and private judgment as ecclesiological foundations. More troubling still is the wholesale capitulation of many Protestant groups to secular ideologies, evident in their abandonment of apostolic traditions; most notably in the ordination of women to pastoral ministry, and their eager embrace of worldly values in matters of sexual morality and bioethics.

When Protestant denominations ordain women, they do not merely adopt a different disciplinary practice; they reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of the sacramental nature of the priesthood and the iconic representation of Christ intrinsic in the sacrament of Holy Orders. When they bless unions that Scripture and constant Christian tradition condemn, they demonstrate that without the teaching authority of the Church, theological liberalism inevitably descends into theological liberalism’s ultimate destination: the substitution of contemporary cultural preferences for revealed truth.

Given this trajectory, the ecumenical enterprise with Protestantism begins to appear not merely fruitless but also as a misallocation of resources. In the end the question is: what fruit can be expected from dialogue with communities that they no longer maintain continuity with historic Christianity?

The Scandal of Equivalence

The current scandal lies not in Catholic engagement with separated brethren per se; there is nothing inherently wrong about dialogue or even collaborative projects in areas of shared concern; but in the confusion sown by Catholic leaders who process in pseudo-celebrations with schismatic clergy or those without valid orders. This leads many to believe that they are equivalent to Catholic bishops and priests. When Catholic prelates participate in joint prayer services, when they accommodate to the sensibilities of those in material heresy, when they blur the distinctions between the Church and ecclesial communities, they create scandal among the faithful.

The faithful Catholic, observing his bishop standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Protestant ministers, sharing platforms with Orthodox prelates in studied ambiguity about differences, is left to wonder: Why do we need the Catholic Church if others are just as good? Were the martyrs who died rather than compromise Catholic truth engaged in something pointless? If Lutheran or Anglican ministers and Catholic priests are functionally equivalent, why should one remain Catholic?

This scandal is compounded when ecumenical initiatives proceed in apparent ignorance of or indifference. Pius XI warned explicitly against precisely the kind of indifferentism that characterizes much contemporary ecumenism: “They add that the Church in itself, or of its nature, is divided into sections; that is to say, that it is made up of several churches or distinct communities, which still remain separate, and although having certain articles of doctrine in common, nevertheless disagree concerning the remainder; that these all enjoy the same rights; and that the Church was one and unique from, at the most, the apostolic age until the first Ecumenical Councils” (Mortalium Animos §7).

This description applies with uncomfortable precision to the operative ecclesiology of many contemporary advocates of ecumenism, who treat denominational divisions as regrettable but ultimately acceptable pluralism rather than the wounds to Christ’s mystical body that they are.

The Poverty of Results and Conclusion

The proven failure of ecumenical results provides its own commentary. After decades of dialogue, joint commissions, fraternal visits, and carefully worded declarations, we are no closer to corporate reunion with any major Orthodox or Protestant group than we were at the close of the Second Vatican Council. Individual conversions continue, as they always have, but the institutional reconciliation that the advocates of ecumenism promised remains perpetually on the horizon, but never quite arriving.

This should not surprise us. Genuine Christian unity requires unity in faith, not merely friendly relations or shared social concerns. As Pius XI stated, “the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it” (ibid. §10). This straightforward path has been exchanged for an endless maze of dialogues that go nowhere because they cannot acknowledge their true destination without either abandoning the enterprise or admitting its fundamental premise was flawed.

The path forward requires a return to the clarity of what true ecumenism really is. The pastors of the Catholic Church must be convinced of their own identity as the Church established by Christ, of the unity already existing in her, of the fullness of Christian truth subsisting in unbroken continuity from the apostles. This is not arrogance but fidelity to the divine structure of the Church.

Dialogue with separated brethren can and should continue, but it must be honest dialogue that does not pretend differences away or treat error and truth as equally valid positions. The Church must be clear that unity can only be achieved through return to full communion with the See of Peter, not through the creation of some novel confederation that has never existed and could never exist without betraying the Church’s nature.

The modern ecumenical movement, in its confusion and its compromises, has become an obstacle to genuine unity rather than a path toward it. It offers the faithful an anaemic substitute for the robust Catholicism that alone can satisfy the human heart’s longing for truth. It is time to acknowledge this failure, to learn from it, and to return to the principle that animated the Church’s missionary efforts for two millennia: extra Ecclesiam nulla salus: outside the Church there is no salvation. Not because God cannot save whom He wills, but because He has established one Church as the ordinary means of salvation, and fidelity to Christ requires fidelity to that Church in its fullness.

The ecumenical movement will bear fruit only when it ceases to be ecumenical in the modern sense and becomes once again what it should always have been: an evangelical proclamation of the fullness of Catholic truth and inviting all to embrace it. Until then, we should expect little fruit from those labours.

---

TOPICS: Catholic; Ecumenism; Theology
KEYWORDS: conciliarchurch; ecumania; modernism; vcii

[ebb tide]

The ecumenical movement will bear fruit only when it ceases to be ecumenical in the modern sense and becomes once again what it should always have been: an evangelical proclamation of the fullness of Catholic truth and inviting all to embrace it. Until then, we should expect little fruit from those labours.

[ebb tide]

Ping

[ebb tide]

WATCH: Anglican pastor protests confirmation of woke female archbishop of Canterbury

[RatRipper]

Baloney on all the branding and jockeying. Actually, it is simple and centers around Paul admonishing churches and ministers to “preach Christ crucified”. “If I be lifted up I will draw all men unto me.”

[BipolarBob]

CRISIS?? Ecumenism?? Can’t we all just get along? What’s wrong with the brotherhood of man?

[cgbg]

The brotherhood of man is “acting white”.

Once white people lose all power nobody on the planet will care about it anymore—it will be tribe against tribe.

[BipolarBob]

I prepared for that. Survival food, arms and ammo in underground bunker and just to be on the safe side, I legally changed my name to Meek. Because the Meeks are supposed to inherit the earth.

[ebb tide]

What’s wrong with the brotherhood of man?

God is absent in the "brotherhood of man".