Vatican II & Ecumenism: What did the Council Really Say?

Envoy Magazine ^ | Peter Vere, JCL

[NYer]

Do Vatican II’s teachings on ecumenism and religous liberty really conflict with Traditional Catholic teaching?

In his first Envoy article on traditionalist apologetics [see “All Tradition Leads to Rome,” Volume 4.6], canon lawyer Pete Vere identified seven common arguments offered by the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) in defense of their schism, and how he overcame these objections during his journey back to the Catholic Church. Some readers responded that this schism, initiated by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1988, isn’t merely about the Latin Mass. The SSPX also takes issue with the Second Vatican Council, particularly on the issue of ecumenism. These readers knew Pete would have wrestled with the Second Vatican Council as an SSPX adherent and wondered how he overcame his doubts towards the Council in his spiritual pilgrimage back to the Catholic Church. Here is his response.

Did the Second Vatican Council contradict Church Tradition in its teachings on ecumenism? Many traditionalist Catholics — among them, many members of the Society of St. Pius X — would say yes. If they are correct, then the Catholic Church has a serious problem: Vatican II could not be legitimate, since a legitimate ecumenical council may develop but may not contradict the earlier dogmatic teaching of the Church.

To address the issue, of course, we first have to understand how the Church defines ecumenism. Basically, ecumenism is the spiritual dialogue and activity in which the Church engages with other Christians. “Other Christians” in this context is understood to mean validly baptized non-Catholics.

This means, for example, that Catholic-Orthodox dialogue or Catholic-Anglican dialogue constitutes ecumenism, because both Anglicans and the Orthodox are validly baptized non-Catholic Christians. But ecumenism doesn’t cover Catholic-Islamic dialogue or Catholic-Hindu dialogue, because Muslims and Hindus don’t baptize in the name of the Holy Trinity. The Church describes this kind of spiritual activity with non-Christian religions as “interfaith dialogue.”

While we’re defining terms, we should note that when dealing with common worship among Catholics and other Christians, we must distinguish between communicatio in sacris (sharing in the sacraments), and the more general communicatio in spiritualibus (sharing in common prayer).
Generally, the Church encourages communicatio in spiritualibus between Catholics and Protestants, but strictly limits communicatio in sacris to a handful of sacraments, and even then only between Catholics and members of an Eastern non-Catholic Church (see Canon 844). By “Eastern non-Catholic Church” we mean an historical Eastern Church (Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox or Assyrian Church of the East) whose sacraments and apostolic succession the Church recognizes as valid. This is different from Protestants (including Anglicans), whose claim to have valid sacraments and apostolic succession the Catholic Church does not recognize.

The Spirit of Ecumenical Dialogue
Admittedly, the Church has seen some abuses in the name of ecumenism since the closing of the Second Vatican Council. SSPX adherents are familiar with many of these abuses, and they often blame such abuses on the Council itself. They believe ecumenical dialogue waters down the Church’s doctrine and must necessarily lead to the heresy of religious indifferentism (the idea that differences in religion are essentially unimportant). A few even argue that ecumenism itself is heresy. They think ecumenism must necessarily entail a watering down of the Catholic Church’s traditional teaching that she alone is the Church founded by Christ — that she alone is the Ark of Salvation under the New Covenant.

In making such charges, these individuals fail to take into account the Church’s perennial Tradition. Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, Pope John Paul II’s apostolic exhortation on reconciliation and penance, both addresses and clarifies where the Church stands concerning ecumenical dialogue. In fact, the Holy Father goes beyond mere ecumenical dialogue to include all dialogue in which the Church presently engages with the purpose of bringing about true reconciliation among people.

With his typical clarity of thought, the Holy Father teaches:

It should be repeated that, on the part of the Church and her members, dialogue, whatever form it takes (and these forms can be and are very diverse, since the very concept of dialogue has an analogical value) can never begin from an attitude of indifference to the truth. On the contrary, it must begin from a presentation of the truth, offered in a calm way, with respect for the intelligence and consciences of others. The dialogue of reconciliation can never replace or attenuate the proclamation of the truth of the Gospel, the precise goal of which is conversion from sin and communion with Christ and the Church. It must be at the service of the transmission and realization of that truth through the means left by Christ to the Church for the pastoral activity of reconciliation, namely catechesis and penance.ⁱ

This teaching solidly places ecumenical dialogue within the Church’s theological and doctrinal Tradition.

First of all, Pope John Paul addresses the concern that ecumenical dialogue is being used to propagate religious indifferentism. He reiterates that dialogue “can never begin from an attitude of indifference to the truth.” He reminds Christians never to approach ecumenical dialogue with an indifference towards the truth.

In this way the Holy Father authoritatively closes the door to the possible false usage, or abuse, of ecumenical dialogue. He then reiterates the Second Vatican Council’s Catholic principles governing the Church’s involvement in ecumenical dialogue. He explains that all dialogue in which the Church is engaged, including that with our separated brethren, “must begin from a presentation of truth.”

Vatican II Asserts the Papacy’s Traditional Role
Yet what is truth as presented by the Church? What are the principles with which the Church approaches our separated Christian brethren? These are important questions because the adherent to Lefebvre’s schism will often argue that in order to facilitate ecumenical dialogue, the Second Vatican Council downplayed the Church’s unique claim to be founded by Christ upon the Rock of St. Peter.

The Council Fathers anticipate these objections in their declaration on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio. Within this conciliar document, the Council Fathers clearly teach:

In order to establish this holy Church of His everywhere in the world until the end of time, Christ entrusted to the College of the Twelve the task of teaching, ruling, and sanctifying (cf. Mt 28:18-20 in conjunction with Jn 20:21-23). Among their number He chose Peter.
After Peter’s profession of faith, He decreed that on him He would build His Church; to Peter He promised the keys of the kingdom of heaven (cf. Mt 16:19, in conjunction with Mk 18:18). After Peter’s profession of love, Christ entrusted all His sheep to him to be confirmed in faith (cf. Lk 22:32) and shepherded in perfect unity (cf. Jn 21:15-17).ⁱⁱ

Based on Scriptural foundations, the Second Vatican Council’s ecumenical principles flow from the teachings of Christ and His Apostles. The Council teaches that Our Lord’s Church, and hence Christian unity, must be built upon the rock of St. Peter.

Furthermore, the Council asserts that the task of preserving and confirming this unity within our Lord’s Church rests with St. Peter and his lawful successors within the Roman papacy. The objection that the Second Vatican Council’s teachings on ecumenism water down the role of the papacy fails, for this text reiterates what the Church has always taught according to her Sacred Tradition. St. Peter is, and always has been, the foundation of unity among Christians.

Ecumenism Upholds the Real Presence
St. Peter and his successors are the foundation of unity in the Church. However, this foundation is laid down by Jesus Christ. Our Lord is the source of unity within the Church, especially as it concerns His Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament.

We should keep this in mind when defending the Council’s teachings on ecumenism, since many Lefebvrites also allege that ecumenism undermines Catholic faith in our Lord’s Real Presence in order to appease non-Catholics. This allegation is false. Continue reading Vatican II’s decree on ecumenism, and you discover the following teaching: “In His Church [Christ] instituted the wonderful sacrament of the Eucharist by which the unity of the Church is both signified and brought about.”ⁱⁱⁱ

In other words, the Second Vatican Council calls the Church to promote Christian unity through ecumenical dialogue. Yet the Council recognizes that unity can be neither fully realized nor fully symbolized except through the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. The Second Vatican Council not only upholds the traditional Catholic position concerning the Most Blessed Sacrament, but the Council clearly states this position in the very decree through which ecumenism is promoted. The Council Fathers, by promoting ecumenical dialogue, seek to bring  our separated Christian brethren back to full communion with the Catholic Church by means of the Holy Eucharist. The Eucharist symbolizes our unity within the Church as Catholics, first with God and secondly with each other. Yet this symbolism may only be fully realized through the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

In bringing to us the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, as well as in perpetuating Christ’s holy sacrifice upon the cross, the Mass unites all of Christ’s disciples throughout time and space, gathering them into one Church. The intention of the Second Vatican Council’s teaching on ecumenism is to help reunite with the Church those Christian disciples who have become separated through historic schisms and heresies.

The Council of Florence
This ecumenical position represents a departure from Catholic Tradition,” allege many adherents to the SSPX schism. “We find no example of the Catholic Church engaging in similar ecumenical activity before Vatican II.” This allegation troubles many Catholic apologists, because they are unaware of other examples of the Catholic Church’s practice of ecumenism with those who have separated from her. Yet such precedents do exist within Catholic Tradition.

The most important example is probably the ecumenical Council of Florence. This entire council offers a clear precedent from Catholic Tradition for the Church’s present involvement in ecumenical dialogue. After all, the Council of Florence sought to reunite the Orthodox East and the Catholic West.

During this council’s fourth session, Pope Eugene the IV decreed:
Eugenius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, for an everlasting record. It befits us to render thanks to almighty God. … For behold, the western and eastern peoples, who have been separated for long, hasten to enter into a pact of harmony and unity; and those who were justly distressed at the long dissension that kept them apart, at last after many centuries, under the impulse of Him from whom every good gift comes, meet together in person in this place out of desire for holy union.

A couple of matters should draw our attention here.
First, the East and West were obviously separated from one another in schism, as recognized by Pope Eugene the IV in this decree. These Churches nevertheless came together after many centuries to try to reconcile their differences. This is an act of ecumenism, one that Pope Eugene the IV attributes to the Holy Spirit.

In fact, the pope not only attributes this ecumenical dialogue to the Holy Spirit’s inspiration, but he proceeds to uphold such dialogue at the Council of Florence as our Christian obligation, stating: “We are aware that it is our duty and the duty of the whole church to strain every nerve to ensure that these happy initiatives make progress and have issue through our common care, so that we may deserve to be and to be called co-operators with God.”

Tradition Sustains Ecumenical Prayer
Now some critics of the Second Vatican Council maintain that this teaching from the Council of Florence applies solely to ecumenical dialogue, not joint prayer between Catholics and non-Catholics. Yet if we re-read the above citation from the Council of Florence, we find that the pope insists: “It befits us to render thanks to almighty God.” This is a prayer of thanksgiving to God.

Although they had not yet healed their schism, the Roman Pontiff led the Council Fathers gathered from the Catholic West and the Orthodox East in the recitation of this prayer. This is a clear example from Catholic Tradition of a pope and Catholic bishops praying with those Christian brethren who have been separated from full communion.

Non-Catholic Spiritual Authority
Some adherents to post Vatican II schisms disdain the respect shown by the Church towards the ecclesiastical leadership of non-Catholic Churches and denominations. These folks maintain that the Church should continue denouncing non-Catholic spiritual leaders as heretics and schismatics. In departing from the Church’s spiritual unity, they claim, Protestant ministers and Orthodox clergy forfeit any spiritual authority they possess, and thus any right to be held in respect by the Catholic faithful. This is not the position, however, of Pope Eugene the IV, who said this at the Council of Florence:

Finally, our most dear son John Palacologus, emperor of the Romans, together with our venerable brother Joseph, patriarch of Constantinople, the apocrisiaries of the other patriarchal sees and a great multitude of archbishops, ecclesiastics and nobles arrived at their last port, Venice, on 8 February last.

This is recognition, from both Pope Eugene and the Council Fathers, of the religious title and dignity of the Orthodox Emperor John Palacologus and the Orthodox Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople. Despite his separation from Rome, Patriarch Joseph is welcomed to the Council of Florence by Pope Eugene the IV as a brother.

The Second Vatican Council’s approach to ecumenism, by which the Church treats non-Catholic spiritual authorities with both respect and dignity, thus maintains the same ecumenical principles as those upheld at the Council of Florence. No doubt the reality of heresy and schism still exists after the Second Vatican Council (see canon 751), just as it did before the Council of Florence. However, in dialogue with our separated brethren, the Church chooses not to wave the terms “heretic” and “schismatic” in their faces.

What About Protestants?
Nevertheless, in arguing a traditional Catholic position from the Council of Florence — in other words, a position truly based upon the Church’s Sacred Tradition — a Catholic apologist inevitably encounters the objection that these texts apply only to Catholic ecumenism with the Eastern Orthodox. What about Catholic-Protestant ecumenism since the Second Vatican Council? Is there a similar example from a previous ecumenical councils? These are important questions, since SSPX adherents often make a big deal over the invitation extended to six Protestant theologians to participate at the Second Vatican Council in an advisory capacity.

As a quick aside, we should note that there were many additional Orthodox and Protestant observers at the Council. The famous “six Protestants” constantly flouted by opponents of the Second Vatican Council were simply observers at the Consilium, which was involved with the liturgical reform mandated by the Council. The suggestion that these “six Protestants” virtually put together the reformed liturgy of Pope Paul VI is a great exaggeration!

If we accept the Council of Trent as an authentic expression of Catholic Tradition (as Catholics are obliged to do), then such objections fail to take into account Catholic Tradition. For in the documents of Trent’s thirteenth session, we read:

The sacred and holy, general Synod of Trent, lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost … grants, as far as regards the holy Synod itself, to all and each one throughout the whole of Germany, whether ecclesiastics or seculars, of whatsoever degree, estate, condition, quality they be, who may wish to repair to this ecumenical and general Council, the public faith and full security, which they call a safe-conduct … so as that they may and shall have it in their power in all liberty to confer, make proposals, and treat on those things which are to be treated of in the said Synod; to come freely and safely to the said ecumenical Council, and there remain and abide, and propose therein, as well in writing as by word of mouth, as many articles as to them shall seem good, and to confer and dispute, without any abuse or contumely, with the Fathers, or with those who may have been selected by the said holy Synod; as also to withdraw whensoever they shall think fit.

We should make several important observations here.
First, the Council of Trent both invited and offered safe passage to Protestants who wished to come and participate at this ecumenical council.

Second, Trent invited Protestants of all social and ecclesiastical rank to share their theological views, propose topics for debate, and generally participate in the daily affairs of this ecumenical council.

Third, Trent allowed Protestants to withdraw at any time.
Finally, Trent invited Protestants to be more than simply observers.
Clearly, at Trent the Church issued an invitation to ecumenical dialogue between Catholics and Protestants. And since Lutheranism enveloped most of the German nation around the time of the council, this invitation was much broader than the invitation extended to a handful of Protestant theologians at Vatican II. Trent even permitted the Protestants attending the Council a greater level of participation than was allowed to the Protestant theologians observing Vatican II. In all these ways, then, the Lefebvrite objections to Catholic-Protestant ecumenism, both at and after the Second Vatican Council, are little more than objections to a precedent set by the Council of Trent.

Vatican II and Religious Liberty
We can now turn our attention briefly to the matter of Vatican II and religious liberty. While technically speaking this is a distinct theological issue, it’s nevertheless often lumped in with ecumenism by those who challenge the orthodoxy of the Second Vatican Council. In fact, this is probably the most difficult theological hurdle former SSPX adherents must overcome before reconciling with the Church, mainly due to the mistaken popular belief that Archbishop Lefebvre refused to sign the Second Vatican Council’s Declaration on Religious Liberty, Dignitatis Humanae.

Any scholar with access to the Vatican’s archives knows this rumor to be false. Archbishop Lefebvre did indeed sign the document in question. In fact, anyone seeking Lefebvre’s signature on this document need not look any further than the Acta Synodalia (the Acts of the Synod).^iv

Once the adherent to the SSPX schism overcomes the initial shock of seeing Lefebvre’s signature on Dignitatis Humanae, he will often offer a theological objection to the Second Vatican Council’s teaching on religious freedom. In a nutshell, this objection is expressed as follows: Pope Pius IX condemned the following proposition in his Syllabus of Errors: “15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which he, led by the light of reason, thinks to be the true religion.” This appears to contradict Dignitatis Humanae’s teaching on religious freedom, which states:

This Vatican Synod declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that in matters religious no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs.^v

At first glance, these two magisterial teachings do appear irreconcilable. However, the Church can’t contradict herself, and she obviously can’t fail, either. So we must carefully distinguish between moral and political freedom.

Pope Pius IX’s condemnation of religious freedom addresses those who claim all religious expression to be more or less equal — those who say that man possesses a moral freedom to choose whatever religious expression fits his fancy. Around the time of the Second Vatican Council, approximately two thirds of the world lay under the oppressive political yoke of atheistic communism, so the Second Vatican Council addressed this situation through Dignitatis Humanae. In short, the Council taught that all believers have the political freedom to worship God, and the various communist states cannot coerce religious believers into atheism.

Once we understand this context, we can see that the teachings of Pope Pius IX and the Second Vatican Council are easily reconcilable, because they address two different situations. In recognizing religious freedom, Dignitatis Humanae reaffirms man’s moral obligation to seek truth, stating: “All men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of the truth.”^vi

Fresh Insights With a Solid Foundation
In concluding this apologetic for the Vatican II’s teachings on ecumenism, we can affirm that these teachings are fresh insights into our Catholic Tradition, formulated to address new crises arising in the modern world. They mark no departure from what the Church has always taught. Catholic ecumenism is solidly founded in Catholic Tradition, as handed down from previous ecumenical councils, and it simply resurfaced at the Second Vatican Council.

The teachings of Vatican II on ecumenism build upon the Church’s ecumenical precedents established at the Council of Florence and the Council of Trent. As Catholics, we can embrace the Second Vatican Council’s teachings on ecumenism, because these teachings are solidly rooted in Catholic Tradition. 

^{i Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 26.
ii Unitatis Redintegratio, 2.
iii Unitatis Redintegratio, 2.
iv See page 29 for Archbishop Lefebvre’s signature on the Second Vatican Council’s Declaration on Religious Liberty.
v For an in-depth treatment of how Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Freedom is both consistent with Catholic Tradition and represents a legitimate development of Catholic doctrine, I recommend the writings of Dom Basile, a theologian from the Benedictine monastery of Ste. Madeleine de Le Barroux, which has the privilege of using all the liturgical books in force in 1962.
vi Dignitatis Humanae, 2.}

 

[ultima ratio]

This is a straw man. Traditionalists don't deny ecumenism. It is indifferentism and sycretism that is detested--which modernists--and sadly, even this pope--confuse with ecumenism, even to the extent of denying Catholic doctrine for the sake of currying favor with Protestants and Jews.

Thus modernist Catholics were eager to bend to the Lutheran view in the doctrinal dispute on Justification; thus modernist theologians affirm that Jews have yet a special covenant with God--even after their rejection of Christ as their Messiah. This is not ecumenism, it is sucking-up to others at the expense of the Catholic faith itself.

[traditionalist]

This Vatican Synod declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that in matters religious no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs.

Pius IX, Leo XIII, and many other popes taught that it is licit for secular rulers, if they deems it to be in the best interests of the common good, to forcibly repress public expression of false religion. Dignitatus Humanae says immunity from such repression is a human right. That looks like a contradiction to me.

[traditionalist]

Ultima Ratio is exaggerating, as usual, but it is a fact that the fabricators of the Novus Ordo Mass toned down those parts of the mass that Protestants would object to most. One of the Protestants "observers" who helped fabricate the Novus Ordo explcitly admitted this. I'll get you a reference if you want it.

Mind you, none of this undermines the validity of the Novus Ordo. It does not make it "dangerous to the soul" as some hysterics believe. No, it just makes it a less complete expression of Catholic doctrine than the traditional mass. That's all.

[ultima ratio]

The claim that "ecumenism affirms the Real Presence" is a crock. The evidence is that it does not. The new Mass itself, designed to please Protestants, obscures this dogma. So does the insistence by bishops that the faithful should not be allowed to express adoration by kneeling for Communion; so does the ripping-out of Communion rails; so does Communion in the hands; so does the removal of the tabernacle from the central place of honor in the sanctuary, etc., etc., etc.--all of this done to culturally approximate Protestant worship services. The sculptures of saints are gone from our churches, so are even the Stations of the Cross in some places, so are the crucifixes depicting Jesus' sufferings, so are the kneelers in some places. We now talk of "worship spaces" and hold concerts and lectures in our sanctuaries. The list goes on and on. We have sold our birthright, our 2000 year-old Catholic heritage--for a cheap modern mess of potage.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

The quote is unfortunately heretical nonsense.

[traditionalist]

I've seen this quotation attributed to her, but I've never seen the source, which makes me skeptical that she actually said it.

[traditionalist]

SSPX types have NEVER acknowledged the clear language of the Council putting the moral onus on men to seek and adhere to the truth, while at the same time stating that man cannot be FORCED to believe.

The Church has always believed that men cannot be forced to believe. No one is disputing that.

The problem is that traditionally the Church has held that secular rulers may, if they deem it appropriate, use force to supress public expressions of false religion. Vatican 2 declared that such public expressions are a basic human right.

[ultima ratio]

"SSPX types have NEVER acknowledged the clear language of the Council".

This is hilarious. The notion that anything was CLEARLY stated in that sludge of contradiction and ambiguity is ridiculous. Try this one on: In Dei Verbum, the Council states the following: "The Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord's Body." The tricky part is the word "as". Does it mean "in the same way"? If it does, it's not a true statement. We don't worship Scripture as we worship the Body of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. Does it simply mean "we venerate Scripture and we venerate the Lord's Body"? This is true, but the level of veneration radically differs. To the one we show great respect; to the other we adore and worship. But the language doesn't explain. It is left up in the air. The whole of the Council uses words and meanings in this fuzzy imprecise way.

This is one of the major reasons why the Council's statements are not binding intellectually. Nobody can agree on their meanings. To be binding, meanings must be absolutely clear, otherwise it is not possible for the faithful to give intellectual assent. It is also why postconciliar church leaders could so easily bend and twist the words of the Council to fit their radical agendas.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Actually, I don't think most traditionalists have a problem with the Decree on Ecumenism (if they've read it). Archbishop Lefbvre certainly signed it, as did Bishop Castro de Mayer. Its the use that is made of it, such as:

1) Holding ordination services for heretic Protestants in Catholic Churches

2) Equating the schismatic easterners with the heretical protestants

3) Denigrating "No salvation outside the Church"

4) Allowing Catholics to attend and participate in non-Catholic services

On the other hand, the Decree on Religious Liberty is extremely problematic in its text, as on the face of it, it contradicts the Bible and everything the Church had ever said about its rights in the world. The fact that it was used by the Church to force Catholic countries like Spain, Columbia, Malta, etc. to "de-Catholicize" their governments is also a sign of what it was really all about - the destruction of the priveleges of the Church, in line with what the masonic countries would allow her to retain.

And the "interfaith diolague" has been nothing but a copious well spring of filth, like the Assisi disaster, the pandering to the Jews, and a general lack of missionary spirit in pagan and infidel countries.

[ultima ratio]

This is widely known. If you don't know about this, you need to do a google search. Don't be lazy--get the information for yourself. There are even newpaper photos of the six advisors posing with Paul VI.

[Land of the Irish]

Where have I heard a similar statement? Oh yes, the SSPX, with regard to Second Vatican Council !

What part of dogmatic versus pastoral council do you not understand?

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Vatican II would not be a problem with all its imprecisions if it were consigned to the level of importantance it rightly deserves in the Catholic mind - somewhere right behind the ever timely teachings of the First Council of Lyon and the Second Council of the Lateran that we all know so well.

[ultima ratio]

How have I exaggerated? I have said there were six Protestant advisors, that they were asked for input on the various drafts of the Novus Ordo and they rejected some and finally approved of the version which had been adjusted to suit their objections. This is historical fact. I exagggerate nothing.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

The Church has always believed that men cannot be forced to believe. No one is disputing that.

Oh baloney! Much of Europe was converted at sword point when the King converted. One exception was Iceland, which did the democratic thing and held a vote in the Althing, which the pagans lost, thus leading to the banning of paganism by democratic action.

Men might not be forced to believe, but their children will come to do so when the only religious/educational option given is the Catholic one, and when all the competing shrines and holy places are either knocked down or overbuilt with a Catholic Church. Many of the most famous Catholic Churches in Europe are built directly above sacred groves and pools (some baptismal fonts ARE the sacred pools). The Pontifex Maximus of Ancient Rome IS now the Pope. He is the literal holder of the old pagan seat of religious authority in the Empire.

The winning of the children was generally quite easy, because the Church won the hearts of the women-folk by incorporating the worthwhile elements of so much of the natural pagan religion of Europe/N. Africa/Middle East into the Catholic liturgy. Women are also cowards. When they watched a few of the more recalictrant men get slaughtered for adhering to paganism, they became fervent Churchgoers.

Its pretty easy to find canons from the post-Constantinian period calling for the pulling down of pagan shrines and temples, for the replacement of pagan wayside shrines with wayside icons, and similar.

None of this is reconcilable with the "we can't force anyone to believe" line of BS.

Gospel of St. Luke 14:23. And the lord said to the servant, Go forth into the ways and hedges: and compel them to enter, that my house may be filled.

Footnote of the Rhiems New Testamtent (1582 version) 23. Compel them.] The vehement persuasion that God useth both externally by force of his word and miracles, and internally by his grace, to bring us unto him, is called compelling: not that he forceth any to come to him against their own wills, but that he can alter and molish an hard heart, and make him willing that before would not. St. Augustine also referreth this compelling to the penal laws which Catholic Princes do justly use against Heretics and Schismatics, proving that they who are by their former profession in Baptism subject to the Catholic Church, and are departed from the same after Sects, may and ought to be compelled into the unity and society of the universal Church again, and therefore in this sense, by the two former parts of the parable, the Jews first, and secondly the Gentiles, that never believed before in Christ, were invited by fair sweet means only: but by the third, such are invited as the Church of God hath power over, because they promised in baptism, and therefore are to be revoked not only by gentle means, but by just punishment also.

[ultima ratio]

Yes. Liberalism empties pews, Protestant and Catholic.

[traditionalist]

There is a difference between forcibly suppressing public expressions of paganism and forcing pagans to be baptized. The former was widely used, though not in the post-Constantinian empire. The latter did happen occasionally, but not with the sanction of the Church. In fact it was condemned early on.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Women are also cowards.

Hardly. Joan of Arc, Hildegard of Bingen, Catherine of Siena, the Virgin Mary, not to mention other women of the Old and New Testaments. In addition, many women were burned at the stake for refusing to convert. They may have been pagans but they were not cowards. History proves you wrong.

[Tantumergo]

Vere has conveniently forgotten the infallible decree issued by Eugene IV at the Council of Florence, as a result of the re-union agreed by the majority of the Council fathers (both Latin and Greek), :

"The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire "which was prepared for the devil and his angels," (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this Ecclesiastical Body, that only those remaining within this unity can profit from the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and that they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, almsdeeds, and other works of Christian piety and duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

Additionally the Council of Trent (as you are no doubt all aware), although it invited the Protestants to take part in order to settle the disputed doctrines (men who were still in valid Catholic orders), was equally authoritative in the condemnation of their errors.

Contrast the above infallible decree of the Council of Florence with the ambiguous twaddle (in no way declared to be binding on all the faithful) issued in V2's decree on ecumenism:

"The brethren divided from us also carry out many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. In ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or community, these liturgical actions most certainly can truly engender a life of grace, and, one must say, can aptly give access to the communion of salvation" (UR 3c).

It is notable that the English bishops (under Cardinal Godfrey) had requested along with many other bishops that the Protestant observers be excluded from some of the Council's sessions, in order that the bishops could discuss the issues freely without fear of embarrassment or compromise. The modernists under Cardinal Bea prevailed as they did in so many things.

IMHO the above statement of V2 is the one that is most difficult to reconcile with previous definitive teaching. But as has been said before, no claim is made for the dogmatic status of this document. The main aim of the decree on ecumenism was to set out Catholic pastoral policy towards separated brethren, and as such any comments that touch on matters of faith or morals were very much secondary. Pastoral policy has never been considered to be immune from error and consequently cannot be binding on the faithful.

If Peter Vere or anyone else can show how the above statements of the Council of Florence and Vatican II are reconcilable, then they are a far greater spin doctor than I.

He also seems to be unaware of the principle set out at Vatican I:

"The meaning of Sacred Dogmas, which must always be preserved is that which our Holy Mother the Church has determined. Never is it permissible to depart from this in the name of a deeper understanding." (Vatican I, Session III, Chap. IV, Faith and Reason.)

[NYer]

Outside the church, there is no salvation

How do you feel about the following, from a catholic apologetics web site?

The doctrine of "Outside the Church there is no salvation" is one that must be carefully understood in context, and it has, in recent years, been subject to much misinterpretation. The first place I would point you to is the recent Catechism of the Catholic Church, which you can trust as an authoritative statement of Catholic doctrine:

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? [335] Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.[336]

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.[337]

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."[338]

335 Cf. Cyprian, Ep. 73.21: PL 3, 1169; De unit.: PL 4, 509-536.

336 LG 14; cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5.

337 LG 16; cf. DS 3866-3872.

338 AG 7; cf. Heb 11:6; 1 Cor 9:16.

This paragraph quotes Second Vatican Council, the document Lumen Gentium. Paul VI incorporated it into his Credo of the People of God

(10 Aug 1968):

22. Recognizing also the existence, outside the organism of the Church of Christ, of numerous elements of truth and sanctification which belong to her as her own and tend to Catholic unity, and believing in the action of the Holy Spirit who stirs up in the heart of the disciples of Christ love of this unity, we entertain the hope that Christians who are not yet in the full communion of the one only Church will one day be reunited in one flock with one only Shepherd.

23. We believe that the Church is necessary for salvation, because Christ who is the sole Mediator and Way of salvation, renders Himself present for us in His Body which is the Church. But the divine design of salvation embraces all men; and those who without fault on their part do not know the Gospel of Christ and His Church, but seek God sincerely, and under the influence of grace endeavor to do His will as recognized through the promptings of their conscience, they, in a number known only to God, can obtain salvation.

On the other hand, it must not be interpreted too strictly. In 1949, a priest by the name of Leonard Feeney was rebuked by the predecessor to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the chief guardian of doctrine at the Holy See, for holding that no one who wasn't literally a member of a Catholic parish could be saved:

LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE TO THE ARCHBISHOP OF BOSTON, AUG. 8, 1949.

This letter, proposed on July 27 and approved the next day by the Supreme Pontiff, is directed against that rigorism by which certain members of the institutions "St. Benedict's Center" and "Boston College" interpret the saying "Outside the Church there is no salvation" to mean that all non-Catholics--catechumens having the explicit intention of entering the Catholic Church excepted--are excluded from eternal salvation. One of these rigorists, Leonard Feeney, unmoved by the warning of Church authority, was excommunicated on Feb. 4, 1953. [See Mike's comment below.]

3866.......Among those things which the Church has always proclaimed and never leaves off proclaiming is contained the infallible proposition by which we are taught that "outside the Church there is no salvation."

3868Nevertheless, this dogma must be understood in the sense in which the Church itself understands it. For our Savior did not give the contents of the deposit of faith to private judgments, but to the magisterium of the Church.The Church does in fact teach how this most severe precept of Jesus Christ is to be interpreted. For He Himself charged His apostles to teach all nations to carry out all the things which He had commanded. Moreover, not the least among the commandments of Christ is that by which Christ orders us to be incorporated by baptism into the mystical body of Christ, that is, the Church, and to cling fast to Christ and to His vicar, through whom He governs the Church on earth in a visible manner. Therefore no one will be saved, who knowing the Church to be divinely instituted by Christ, nevertheless refuses to subject himself to the Church or denies obedience to the Roman Pontiff, the vicar of Christ on earth.

3868 Indeed, Christ did not simply command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also set up the Church as the means of salvation, without which no one is able to enter the kingdom of heavenly glory.

3869 Concerning the aids given for salvation, which are ordered to the ultimate end by divine institution alone and not by any intrinsic necessity, God in his infinite mercy willed that in certain circumstances the effects necessary for salvation may be obtained when these aids are clung to only by a wish or desire. In the most holy Council of Trent, we see this enunciated in clear words first concerning the sacrament of regeneration and then concerning the sacrament of penance.

3870The same can be said about the Church, since she herself is a general aid to salvation. Thus for a person to obtain eternal salvation, it is not always demanded that he really be incorporated as a member of the Church, but it is at least required that he adhere to it by wish and desire. It is proper that this wish not always be explicit, as happens with catechumens; on the contrary, when man labors under invincible ignorance God also accepts an implicit wish, called by this name because it is found in that good disposition of the soul by which man wishes to conform his will to the will of God.

3871 These things are clearly taught inPius XII's encyclical letter on the mystical body of JesusChrist. In this letter the Supreme Pontiff distinguishes clearly between those who are really incorporated as members of the Church, and those who adhere to the Church by wish alone. . . ."Among the members of the Church those alone must be numbered who have received the washing of regeneration and profess the true faith, and have neither separated themselves miserably from the structure of the Body nor, on account of a most serious crime, have been severed from it by legitimate authority." Near the end of the same encyclical letter, inviting to unity with a most loving spirit those who do not belong to the structure of the Catholic Church, he remembers those "who by an ignorant desire or wish may be ordered towards the Mystical Body of the Redeemer," whom he excludes not at all from eternal salvation, although he asserts that in such a state they are tossed about from every side, "and cannot be sure of their own eternal salvation . . . for they lack so many and so great heavenly gifts and aids, of which one may have the benefit only in the Catholic Church."

3872 With these wise words he reproves as much those who exclude from eternal salvation all who adhere to the Church by an implicit wish only, as those who falsely claim that men can be saved in every religion equally. Nor must it be thought that any wish whatsoever of entering the Church suffices for the salvation of man. For it is required that a wish, by which someone is ordered toward the Church, be formed in perfect charity; nor can an implicit wish have effect unless a man has supernatural faith.

[k omalley]

Women are cowards? How do you explain the long list of women martyr-saints of the Church? And on a secular level, try telling that to Jessica the POW.