The Letter That Changed the Church: Cardinal Bea, John XXIII & the Vatican II Revolution

“The Council is Cardinal Bea’s Council!” (Fr. Yves Congar, My Journal of the Council, November 22, 1962 entry)

In his Augustin Bea: The Cardinal of Unity, Cardinal Bea’s longtime secretary, Fr. Stjepan Schmidt, wrote of the homage paid by Cardinal Lorenz Jaeger after Bea’s funeral Mass:

“Cardinal Dr. Lorenz Jaeger, Archbishop of Paderborn, then spoke. His testimony is particularly telling, because his contacts with Augustin Bea went back to long before the Council, which meant that he was in a position to declare: ‘His thinking and work had assumed ecumenical dimensions long before the ecumenical opening in the church took place.’ And he went on as follows: ‘We must thank Bea’s caution, intelligence, and perseverance that the great church assembly of the Second Vatican Council came to support the cause of ecumenism. . . . This personality that won people over with the light it radiated, its readiness to understand, and its selfless service succeeded in opening doors that were formerly tightly shut and began conversations between confessions on a world level.’” (Schmidt, pp. 712-713)

Bea’s ecumenical work at the Council “succeeded in opening doors that were formerly tightly shut.” The analysis that follows shows how Jaeger and Bea persuaded John XXIII to open those doors and begins with a reminder of why the pre-Vatican II popes had worked to prevent that.

Pope Pius XI’s Encyclical Against the Ecumenical Movement

Pius XI’s 1928 encyclical on religious unity, Mortalium Animos, directly opposes the ecumenical movement that has dominated Vatican teaching since the Council. Fr. Jerome-Michael Vereb, a former member of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, acknowledged this in his ‘Because He Was a German!’: Cardinal Bea and the Origins of Roman Catholic Engagement in the Ecumenical Movement:

“[I]n 1928, Pope Pius XI issued the encyclical Mortalium Animos, in which he warned against Roman Catholic participation in the Ecumenical Movement, which he saw as an expression of religious indifferentism. He said that participation by Roman Catholics in assemblies of non-Catholics confirms the dictum that one religion or Church is just as good as another. His fear was that ecumenical meetings were downright negotiations of revealed truths.” (Vereb, p. 48)

Not only did Vereb see Pius XI’s Mortalium Animos as opposing the Ecumenical Movement, he also understood the evils the pope sought to prevent. Now, almost one hundred years after Mortalium Animos, we can in fact see that the ecumenical movement has yielded the bad fruits that Vereb identified above: religious indifferentism, the false signals from Rome that one religion is as good as another, and negotiations of revealed truths.

How, then, have the ecumenists been able to persuade Catholics to pursue the path against which Pius XI warned? Pius XI answered this by highlighting the same falsehoods we hear from Rome today:

“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. 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.”

Pius XI understood all of the arguments we hear today, and he soberly concluded that such “enticing words and blandishments” conceal lies that would completely destroy the foundations of Catholic faith.

Fr. Vereb’s response to these words from Motalium Animos helps us appreciate the staggering disconnect between Catholic reality and the mindset of the ecumenists who have dominated Rome for sixty years:

“Pius XI’s words were harsh. He spoke of pan-Christians, who, so far from being a few isolated individuals, had formed an entire class. They had grouped into societies of extensive membership, usually under the direction of non-Catholics, who also disagreed in matters of faith. In fact, in the end, the Pontiff pleaded for a return to the one true Church of Christ by those who are separated from it. The specific cause for such a negative encyclical is not known. However, the Ecumenical Movement was growing.” (Vereb, p. 49)

Of course, Pius XI’s words sounded “harsh” because the ecumenical movement was spreading lies that could destroy the foundations of Catholic faith. As Vereb noted, the pope insisted that the path to unity consisted in “a return to the one true Church of Christ by those who are separated from it.” Pius XI evidently knew that there were some dangerous voices trying to preach a different path to Christian unity.

The Theological Shift from Return to Convergence

Consistent with what the Church had always taught, Pius XI had emphasized the need for non-Catholic Christians to return to the Catholic Church. Non-Catholics had naturally opposed this teaching, but the ecumenical movement that triumphed at Vatican II, and has dominated Rome since the Council, depended upon Catholics opposing Mortalium Animos.

Discussing Bea’s developing views on ecumenism, Fr. Vereb indicated that Bea had initially aligned more closely with Pius XI’s view:

“While at this time [around 1959] he had not moved away from a theology of ‘return,’ he was beginning to demonstrate the inauguration of a new theological process, which sought ‘convergence.’” (Vereb, p. 165)

We should be grateful to Vereb for his honesty, for this is truly an astonishing admission: Bea would eventually jettison the Catholic position set forth in Mortalium Animos in favor of a “new theological process” which sought a convergence of Catholics and non-Catholics, rather than a return of non-Catholics to the Church.

From a practical standpoint, the transition from “return” to “convergence” depended upon “correcting” the ideas that Pius XII set forth in paragraph 22 of his 1943 encyclical on the Mystical Body of Christ, Mystici Corporis:

“Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.”

For a Christian to be a member of the Church, which Pius XII identified as the Mystical Body of Christ, not only does he need to be baptized, he must also “profess the true faith” and not be separated from the Church. Those who believe this understand why non-Catholics must “return” to the Church.

As detailed in a previous article, the key to the theological shift away from the true meaning of Mystici Corporis relied upon focusing on the common baptism of all Christians, which is precisely the emphasis we see today from the Synod on Synodality. Fr. Vereb summarized the way in which Cardinal Bea came to adopt this theological shift, thanks in large part to the influence of Monsignor Josef Hofer:

“Hofer, as we have seen, carried with him from Germany a decade-old preoccupation with the theological concept of the Mystical Body of Christ. In the last days of the war, with the promulgation of Mystici Corporis, he criticized the text as being mono-Christic in nature. He sought instead a Spirit-given inclusiveness. He posed the question over and over: Who is a member of the Church? He identified for Bea as well as for Jaeger that the mindset of the ordinary Roman Catholic excluded schismatics and other Christians from Church membership. Again, the answer to his repeated statement of the question would eventually come from a reexamination of the biblical concept of Baptism. Apart from Bea’s formal tasks in the fifteen years before he became cardinal, he received an abundance of riches from his membership on pontifical commissions and his very valuable friendship with Hofer. The experience gave him ingress to what really was the heart of the question: Who is truly a member of the Mystical Body of Christ? The resolution to that question was necessary before the concept of ecumenism could be developed from a Roman Catholic perspective. It would be Bea’s gift to place it in a wider ecclesial context.” (Vereb, pp. 142-143)

Thus, Bea eventually became convinced of the need to favor a new ecumenical orientation that abandoned the clear teaching of Pius XI and Pius XII. It remains to be seen how Bea came to dominate Vatican II and everything that has followed in the Church since the Council closed.

Bea’s Background and the Letter That Changed Everything

Prior to being made cardinal in 1959, Fr. Augustin Bea’s resume already included a few items of interest:

It is intriguing to consider that Bea’s official work prior to the Council gave him tremendous access not only to Pius XII but also to those spheres of activity that would be so dangerously compromised by one who pursued an agenda at odds with unadulterated Catholicism.

This brings us to the series of exchanges that led to Bea being able to dramatically shape the documents and ideas of Vatican II. In his biography of Bea, Fr. Schmidt connected some of the dots as follows:

“In the first of these [letters], dated 1 January 1960, the cardinal [Bea] wrote to E. Stakemeier, head of the Johann-Adam Möhler Institute in Paderborn, as follows: ‘A variety of people have asked me about the possibilities for the creation of a commission for the ecumenical movement. The best approach will probably be to deal with it in the framework of the conciliar theological commissions, although these have not yet been formed. However, I shall take advantage of the next opportunity to discuss the question with the Holy Father too. Would it not be useful for the Möhler Institute, which has such experience in this area, to submit a formal request, giving explicit reasons and referring to the importance of the matter?’ And the cardinal adds: ‘If you care to leave me the draft, I shall be very happy to take a look at it and complete it where necessary.” (Schmidt, p. 323)

Here we can see Bea’s great ability to enlist the support of influential parties to advance his projects. As Schmidt proceeded to describe, the Möhler Institute soon wrote back favorably with the draft letter. Ultimately, Archbishop Lorenz Jaeger signed the letter, dated March 4, 1960, which began as follows:

“Most Holy Father, humbly prostrate at the feet of Your Holiness, I, the Archbishop of Paderborn, and the President of the Institute named after Johann Adam Möhler, together with the Vice Rector and the directors of the Institute, eagerly request Your Holiness to deign to establish a Pontifical Commission to Promote Christian Unity. The role of this Commission would be to observe and help those meetings and projects, which would unite all those who were baptized and believe in Christ the Lord into One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Roman Church.” (Vereb, p. 184)

The letter continued by arguing for the need for a centralized body to coordinate and control all ecumenical activities within the Church:

“[I]t is easily understood that the individual endeavors, even in such a specialized field, (and) in a matter of such great importance, are indeed so difficult that they need a certain supreme care and vigilance by the Apostolic See. Further, that care should be extended to the various projects already existing in various regions and countries, so that all the works may move harmoniously toward the same final end, namely Christian Unity; and, that they would work among themselves wholeheartedly. All of these things, as is evident, can only be done truly and effectively, under the authority of the Apostolic See. Therefore, this Pontifical Commission must be vigilant to take great care of these efforts in the Ecumenical Movement, i.e., in the initiatives, studies, and works in the various nations, and to achieve Christian Unity among themselves, in whatever way it can.” (Schmidt, pp. 185-186)

When one thinks about all of the fields connected with ecumenism — including liturgy, dogma, moral theology, and Canon Law — one can see how transformative it could be to allow a single Vatican commission to exert its influence over ecumenical matters for the sake of promoting Christian unity. If such an organization was led by men who wanted to undermine Catholic teaching, they could carry out a catastrophic revolution in the Church under the banner of promoting Christian unity.

John XXIII’s Reaction to the Letter

Fr. Schmidt related Cardinal Bea’s account of John XXIII’s reaction to the letter:

“The pope’s reaction to the petition was positive and surprisingly fast. The cardinal himself wrote about this later, saying that the petition was submitted with his letter on 11 March, and ‘a bare two days later, on 13 March, the pope had me informed of his general approval and his wish to discuss it in greater detail, which was in fact done at the audience I had that same day. . . . The files contain a faithful transcription of two notes made by the pope on this matter. In a personal note dated 13 March 1960, the day of the audience, we read: ‘Yesterday evening visit to Cardinal Tardini: good. May the Lord preserve him and grant him life. This morning I received Cardinal Bea here in the private apartment, and entrusted him with the task of organizing a commission to promote the union of Christians, of which he was to be the head, nominated by me.” (Schmidt, pp. 326-327)

Bea had delivered the letter from Jaeger to John XXIII along with his own personal letter to the pope, and received a favorable reply soon thereafter. Even though the letter had remained silent on who the head of the commission should be, John XXIII predictably named Bea. Fr. Schmidt further described the way in which John XXIII had seen the entire episode as a sign from heaven:

“Pope John XXIII’s private secretary also tells us about a supernatural aspect of the speed with which the suggestion was accepted: ‘When he received a proposal that represented a practical response to the appeal contained in the announcement of the Council . . . the pope felt very happy, for it was as if he had received a new sign from heaven, and it was all the more welcome in that it came from a country where Catholics and Protestants had already set in train observance of the gospel norm of tolerance. . . . The suggestion was handed on to him by a Jesuit cardinal for whom he had great respect.’” (Schmidt, p. 327)

Already with these words, we can see an enthusiasm from John XXIII for the “gospel norm of tolerance” for non-Catholics. While there is nothing necessarily heretical in this, it is evident that he welcomed a shift away from how the Church had always approached non-Catholics.

As one concrete example of this openness to what had been previously forbidden, we can consider Fr. Vereb’s description of John XXIII’s willingness to have Yves Congar named among the experts to Bea’s Commission:

“Bea also thought about the time after the Council, when ‘the after life of the Commission’ should be secured. With those goals, they sifted through the proposed names and ultimately laid them on the desk of Pope John. Most notable of them all was French professor Yves Congar, O.P., who had himself been ostracized in the 1950s for his ecumenical ideas. Finally, Bea wrote to Jaeger: ‘Last Thursday, after the concert, when the Holy Father greeted the Cardinals in the Hall of Benedictions, he said to me, ‘I have received and read your Gutachtern (panel of experts).’ ‘Sta bene!’ I said, ‘is it so?’ He answered, ‘Yes, it is truly so!’ Thus, we have the first positive result.’” (Vereb, 197)

Congar (who twice urinated on the door of the Holy Office) went on to play a vital role in bringing revolutionary ideas into the Council documents; and, as Francis told us, Congar was an inspiration behind the Synodal project to “create a different church.” One can understand, then, why Bea was excited and perhaps surprised to find John XXIII approving his list of collaborators.

For those who recall the fact that the Third Secret of Fatima was to be released in 1960 (because its meaning would be more clear by that time), John XXIII’s reaction has added significance. Whether or not one believes in the messages of Fatima, the Catholic world knew that there was something about 1960 about which the “prophets of doom” would be concerned. Far from considering Bea’s initiative to be a cause for alarm, he considered it a blessed sign from Heaven. In hindsight, he could not have been more wrong.

Bea’s Ecumenical Work at the Council and Beyond

As discussed in a previous article, many of the most alarming aspects of the current crisis — including the principles and building blocks of the Synod on Synodality — were actively promoted by Bea. Fr. Schmidt’s description of Bea’s goals for the Council gives us a clear idea of some key initiatives that the Church would probably not now know were it not for Bea:

““[F]rom the start of its preparatory work, the secretariat had included various ecclesiological subjects in its program: the church-membership of baptized non-Catholics, the hierarchical structure of the church, the common priesthood of the faithful, and the position of lay people in the church, as well as the fraught subject of mixed marriages.” (Schmidt, p. 364)

Each of these ideas is so common now that the bishops do not seem to recall a time in which they were not actually part of Church teaching. These ideas — even permission and encouragement for mixed marriages — are accepted without question today, all thanks to Bea.

While we could unfortunately consider countless other examples of Bea’s influence on the crisis we have suffered through since the Council, one observation from Fr. Vereb suffices:

“With his appointment by John XXIII as the first Cardinal President, Bea was endowed with a ‘bully pulpit’ to draw his argument in public and to distinguish his conclusion regarding ‘the incommensurable grace of baptism, which consists in indestructible bonds, stronger than all our divisions.’” (Vereb, 224)

This has become the dominant line of thinking in Rome due to John XXIII providing Bea with the “bully pulpit” at the Council and beyond. Now the Vatican is far more willing to accept and promote Bea’s non-Catholic ideas than those ideas that Pius XI stated in Mortalium Animos. For the sake of unity, Traditional Catholics must therefore be excluded. As a result, all of the baptized are welcome in the Synodal Church, other than those baptized who happen to agree with Pius XI. The term “diabolical disorientation” seems entirely accurate to describe this unholy paradox.

“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.”

Everything built upon the foundation of Bea’s ecumenical movement offends God, leads souls to hell, and serves the Church’s enemies. God alone can end the crisis, but those who love the Church ought to defend its true Catholic foundations. Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!

With Mortalium Animos in 1928, Pius XI had locked the door to the ecumenical movement. John XXIII unlocked the door in 1960 when he acted upon the letter from Bea and Jaeger. The door has remained open ever since. And with every passing year, Pius XI’s warning becomes more impossible to deny:
“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.”

A summary for Freeper day drinkers:

The article argues that **Cardinal Augustin Bea played a major role in shifting the Catholic Church toward ecumenism before and during Vatican II**. It contrasts this approach with Pope Pius XI’s 1928 encyclical *Mortalium Animos*, which warned Catholics against participating in an ecumenical movement that treated different Christian denominations as equally valid and instead emphasized the return of separated Christians to the Catholic Church. According to the article, Bea gradually moved from this older “return” approach toward a theology of “convergence,” emphasizing common baptism and cooperation among Christians.

The central event described is a **1960 letter from Archbishop Lorenz Jaeger and the Möhler Institute**, supported by Bea, requesting that Pope John XXIII establish a Pontifical Commission to promote Christian unity. John XXIII approved the proposal within days and appointed Bea to head the commission, giving him a prominent role in shaping Vatican II’s approach to ecumenism. The article credits Bea with influencing issues including the status of baptized non-Catholics, the role of the laity, mixed marriages, and the broader theological direction of the Council. The author views this development negatively, arguing that it departed from earlier Catholic teaching and ultimately contributed to the theological changes and conflicts within the Church that followed Vatican II.

I read the title, laughed at the RCC, and wrote this reply.

I have to leave for BIBLE study.

I’m a “saint” in the One True Church so I study the Bible and pay ZERO attention to what the cults are up to.

Buh-bye

… classic reply because you’re “triggered”.

Tut-tut.

You’re only laughing at your ignorant lying diversion scheme.

Note that I did not make any “Personal attack”

I hate the Roman Catholic Church. And I can tell you why.

Get serious.
Tell me why you’re triggered.

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.