|
Why Do Traditionalists Disapprove of
Ecumenism? Doesn't This Go Against the Vatican Council?
Note: Primary Sources May Include:
Amerio, Davies |
Continued From Previous
Page
It allows those who are "in very truth
contending against God" to remain uncorrected. As Pope Leo
XIII has said, "[H]e scatters and gathers not who gathers not with the Church and
with Jesus Christ, and all who fight not jointly with him and with
the Church are in very truth contending against God." (Pope
Leo XII, "Sapientiae Christianae", 1890 A.D.)
It makes us appear more willing to offend God
than our neighbor (e.g. by "watering down" Catholic
truths, by shrinking from speaking hard truths in order to avoid
offense, by failing to anathematize error, etc.).
It gives "rights" to lies, which
are contrary to truth: "Those men...are deceiving themselves
whose love for revealed truth does not keep pace with their
charity! Such Christianity as that believes as little as it may...
Charity, they say, is the queen of virtues; it makes them take
everything easily, even lies against truth; to give the same
rights to error as to truth is, in their estimation, the highest
point of Christian civilization grounded on love! They quite
forget that the first object of charity, God who is substantial
Truth, has no greater enemy than a lie; they cannot understand how
it is that a Christian does not do a work of love by putting on
the same footing the Object beloved and His mortal enemy!"
(Liturgical Year)
It may allow others to continue to deny
Christ, rather than bringing the true Christ to them: As St.
Ambrose says, "Even the heretics appear
to have Christ, for none of them denies the name of Christ; yet
anyone who does not confess all that pertains to Christ does in
fact deny Christ." (St. Ambrose, Doctor of the Church)
Furthermore, the ecumenists' praised
"searching for the truth" seems insulting to God who deposited the
truth in the Church. If the Church acts as though she must go in
search of the truth, is she not denying that God has already given it to
her?
False ecumenism also tends to lead
to the toleration of error, scandal, and to the setting aside of
specifically Catholic rules, beliefs and practices [for example,
Catholics may be expected to put aside specifically Catholic
practices in order to "emphasize any elements we may have in
common" and to avoid talking about things that are not held
in common. Such actions tend to disguise the great differences
between us and "give the impression that all beliefs are
equally valid or similar"]. It leads to a danger of false
compromise, and a danger of doctrinal corruption. It "fails
to protect the faithful, exchanges authority for dialog, appears
to water down the faith, leads to religious indifferentism, tends
to cause harmful changes (e.g. protestantization of the
liturgy),
tends to deny objective truths, may lead to sacrilege, allows
heresy to flourish unchecked, tends to validate heretics in their
errors, implants errors in the minds of Catholics, implies that
heresy can be overlooked, tends to reject the idea of proselytism,
implies that the Church does not have the truth but must seek it
from those outside, gives the idea that the deposit of faith is
subject to negotiation, and tends to lead to a false concept of
"universal salvation".
It is charged with "being more
interested in fostering communion with those who reject the Church
than amongst those who accept her" and being "more
likely to corrupt the Catholic flock than to help others
convert". It does not tend to bring others into the Church.
It "overlooks serious differences, emphasizes cooperation
over conversion, assists our enemies, causes confusion, gives a
false optimism, ignores the fact that we have enemies (earthly and
spiritual), and attempts the impossible reconciliation of error
and truth". Further, it tends to "assume that dialog is
always fruitful and never harmful." It may harm all parties,
and may reduce the chances that the erring party will renounce
their errors or make any necessary changes. Therefore,
"one may argue that the whole concept is uncharitable -
considering that there is no salvation outside the
Church!"
Furthermore, it tends to ignore the fact that Our Lord sent the
apostles to preach the true faith to others, not to be taught a
false faith by them!
On the other hand, of course, a "true
ecumenism" is most appropriate. As Von
Hildebrand has stated, "The term 'ecumenism', properly
understood, has to do with the Church's universality, one of her
essential marks. It belongs to the essential mission of the Church
to strive to convert every human being." In practice,
however, it is often a false ecumenism that prevails.
In sum, one may say that "To the extent that it
ecumenism harms or endangers faith, it is bad.
To the extent that it brings others to the faith,
it is good - but this, of course, must not be to the detriment of
Catholics (e.g. "watered down Sacraments or doctrine").
Note that a true ecumenism presents the full
Catholic doctrine, unhesitatingly
calls those outside the Church to convert, and explains that true
unity is possible only in the true Church, the Catholic Church.
For example, consider the following quotations:
"It is not enough to
draw close to others, to talk to them, to assure them of our trust
and to seek their good. One must also take steps to convert them.
One must preach to get them to come back. One must try to
incorporate them into the divine plan, that is one and
unique." (Pope Paul VI, 1968 A.D.)
"It is, of course, essential that doctrine be
clearly presented in its entirety. Nothing is so foreign to the
spirit of ecumenism as a false conciliatory approach which harms
the purity of Catholic doctrine and obscures its assured genuine
meaning." (Second Vatican Council)
"[T]he
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. To the one true
Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to
remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as
He instituted it." (Pope Pius
XI, "Mortalium Animos")
"Let,
therefore, the separated children draw nigh to the Apostolic See,
set up in the City which Peter and Paul, the Princes of the
Apostles, consecrated by their blood; to that See, We repeat,
which is 'the root and womb whence the Church of God
springs,' not with the intention and the hope that 'the
Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth'
will cast aside the integrity of the faith and tolerate their
errors, but, on the contrary, that they themselves submit to its
teaching and government." (Pope Pius XI, "Mortalium
Animos")
"Therefore,
Our mouth is open to you... who are separated from the Catholic
Church. We earnestly desire that each and every one of you should
meditate upon the words, so full of gravity and love, addressed by
Bessarion to your
forefathers: 'What answer shall we give to God when He comes to
ask why we have separated from our brethren: to Him who, to unite
us and bring us into one fold, came down from heaven, was
incarnate, and was crucified? What will our defense be in the eyes
of posterity? Oh, my Venerable Fathers, we must not suffer this to
be, we must not entertain this thought, we must not thus so ill
provide for ourselves and for our brethren.' Weigh carefully in
your minds and before God the nature of Our request. It is not for
any human motive, but impelled by divine charity and a desire for
the salvation of all, that We advise the reconciliation and union
with the Church of Rome; and We mean a perfect and complete union,
such as could not subsist in any way if nothing else was brought
about but a certain kind of agreement in the tenets of belief and
an intercourse of fraternal love. The true union between
Christians is that which Jesus Christ, the Author of the Church,
instituted and desired, and which consists in a unity of faith and
a unity of government. Nor is there any reason for you to fear on
that account that We or any of Our successors will ever diminish
your rights, the privileges of your patriarchs, or the established
ritual of any one of your churches [referring to the schismatics
who have retained the ministerial priesthood]. It has been and always will be
the intent and tradition of the Apostolic See, to make a large
allowance, in all that is right and good, for the primitive
traditions and special customs of every nation. On the contrary,
if you re-establish union with Us, you will see how, by God's
bounty, the glory and dignity of your churches will be remarkably
increased. May God, then, in His goodness, hear the prayer that
you yourselves address to Him: 'Make the schisms of the churches
cease,' and 'Assemble those who are dispersed, bring back those
who err, and unite them to Thy Holy Catholic and Apostolic
Church.' May you thus return to that one holy Faith which has been
handed down both to Us and to you from time immemorial; which your
forefathers preserved untainted, and which was enhanced by the
rival splendor of the virtues, the great genius, and the sublime
learning of St. Athanasius and St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nazianzum
and St. John Chrysostom, the two saints who bore the name of
Cyril, and so many other great men whose glory belongs as a common
inheritance to the East and to the West... If in unhappy time many
of your forefathers were separated from the Faith of Rome,
consider now what priceless benefits a return of unity would bring
to you." (Pope Leo XIII, "Praeclara Gratulationis
Publicae", 1894 A.D.)
And,
as the Holy Office has stated:
"Therefore
the whole and entire Catholic doctrine is to be presented and
explained: by no means is it permitted to pass over in silence or
to veil in ambiguous terms the Catholic truth regarding the nature
and way of justification, the constitution of the Church, the
primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, and the only true
union by the return of the dissidents to the one true Church of
Christ. It should be made clear to them that, in returning to the
Church, they will lose nothing of that good which by the grace of
God has hitherto been implanted in them, but that it will rather
be supplemented and completed by their return. However, one should
not speak of this in such a way that they will imagine that in
returning to the Church they are bringing to it something
substantial which it has hitherto lacked. It will be necessary to
say these things clearly and openly, first because it is the truth
that they themselves are seeking, and moreover because outside the
truth no true union can ever be attained." (Instruction Of
The Holy Office, On The Ecumenical Movement, 1949 A.D.)
And:
"They
shall also be on guard lest, on the false pretext that more
attention should be paid to the points on which we agree than to
those on which we differ, a dangerous indifferentism be
encouraged, especially among persons whose training in theology is
not deep and whose practice of their faith is not very strong. For
care must be taken lest, in the so-called 'irenic' spirit of
today, through comparative study and the vain desire for a
progressively closer mutual approach among the various professions
of faith, Catholic doctrine - either in its dogmas or in the
truths which are connected with them - be so conformed or in a way
adapted to the doctrines of dissident sects, that the purity of
Catholic doctrine be impaired, or its genuine and certain meaning
be obscured." (Instruction Of The Holy Office, On The
Ecumenical Movement, 1949 A.D.)
Further, the entire premise of an ecumenism
which fails to call those outside the Church to be part of her is
flawed and cannot work. Consider, for example, the following:
It
does not consider that our love for neighbor requires not the
giving in to his errors, but his betterment - "No sooner has
one forgotten that the eternal salvation of our neighbor has to be
our main concern for him, than the real love of neighbor becomes
impossible. No sooner does one cease to understand that love of
neighbor does not seek fulfillment of all his wishes, than this
love becomes a weakness and a way of giving in. No sooner does one
forget the words of St. Augustine, 'Interficere errorem, diligere
errantem' ('kill the error, love him who errs'), than one loses
all understanding for real love of neighbor. Love of neighbor can
only be rightly understand that we live in a situation in which we
are bound to reject all moral mistakes and even many non-moral
disvalues, in which we have to struggle against error and evil -
struggle against them with all our might - but in which love of
neighbor extends even to him who errs, who is evil, even to whim
who is the enemy of God. We can understand love of neighbor
rightly, and its holy power, only when we see it against the
background of all those acts which reject what is wrong. To this
we are called, indeed obliged." (Von
Hildebrand)
We
are under an obligation to show forth our faith and uproot errors
- "Amid such reckless and widespread folly of opinion, it is,
as We have said, the office of the Church to undertake the defense
of truth and uproot errors from the mind, and this charge has to
be at all times sacredly observed by her, seeing that the honor of
God and the salvation of men are confided to her keeping. But,
when necessity compels, not those only who are invested with power
of rule are bound to safeguard the integrity of faith, but, as St.
Thomas maintains: 'Each one is under obligation to show forth his
faith, either to instruct and encourage others of the faithful, or
to repel the attacks of unbelievers.' To recoil before an enemy,
or to keep silence when from all sides such clamors are raised
against truth, is the part of a man either devoid of character or
who entertains doubt as to the truth of what he professes to
believe. In both cases such mode of behaving is base and is
insulting to God, and both are incompatible with the salvation of
mankind. This kind of conduct is profitable only to the enemies of
the faith, for nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack
of courage on the part of the good. Moreover, want of vigor on the
part of Christians is so much the more blameworthy, as not seldom
little would be needed on their part to bring to naught false
charges and refute erroneous opinions, and by always exerting
themselves more strenuously they might reckon upon being
successful. After all, no one can be prevented from putting forth
that strength of soul which is the characteristic of true
Christians, and very frequently by such display of courage our
enemies lose heart and their designs are thwarted." (Pope Leo
XIII, "Sapientiae Christianae, 1890 A.D.)
It
overlooks the fact that Christ Himself has established certain
conditions for salvation - "As soon as the social question is
being approached, it is the fashion in some quarters to first put
aside the divinity of Jesus Christ, and then to mention only His
unlimited clemency, His compassion for all human miseries, and His
pressing exhortations to the love of our neighbor and to the
brotherhood of men. True, Jesus has loved us with an immense,
infinite love, and He came on earth to suffer and die so that,
gathered around Him in justice and love, motivated by the same
sentiments of mutual charity, all men might live in peace and
happiness. But for the realization of this temporal and eternal
happiness, He has laid down with supreme authority the condition
that we must belong to His flock, that we must accept His
doctrine, that we must practice virtue, and that we must accept
the teaching and guidance of Peter and his successors. Further,
while Jesus was kind to sinners and to those who went astray, He
did not respect their false ideas, however sincere they might have
appeared. He loved them all, but He instructed them in order to
convert them and save them. While He called to Himself in order to
comfort them, those who toiled and suffered, it was not to preach
to them the jealousy of a chimerical equality. While He lifted up
the lowly, it was not to instill in them the sentiment of a
dignity independent from, and rebellious against, the duty of
obedience. While His heart overflowed with gentleness toward the
souls of goodwill, He could also arm Himself with holy indignation
against the profaners of the House of God, against the wretched
men who scandalized the little ones, against the authorities who
crush the people with the weight of heavy burdens without putting
out a hand to lift them. He was as strong as he was gentle. He
reproved, threatened, chastised; knowing and teaching us that fear
is the beginning of wisdom, and that it is sometimes proper for a
man to cut off an offending limb to save his body. Finally, He did
not announce for future society the reign of an ideal happiness
from which suffering would be banished; but, by His lessons and by
His example, He traced the path of the happiness which is possible
on earth and of perfect happiness in heaven: the royal way of the
Cross." (Pope St. Pius X, "Our Apostolic Mandate",
1910 A.D.)
It
ignores the fact that the faithful have a duty to flee errors in
matters of faith - "the duty that is incumbent on the
faithful to flee also those errors which more or less approach
heresy, and accordingly 'to keep also the constitutions and
decrees by which such evil opinions are proscribed and forbidden
by the Holy See,' is sometimes as little known as if it did not
exist." (Pope Pius XII, "Humani Generis", 1950
A.D.)
It
ignores the fact that there are many seducers - "so great is
the number of seducers and of those whom they snatch away out of
God's flock that such computation were simply beyond
comprehension." (St. Jerome, Doctor of the Church, c. 388
A.D.) Heresy is by no means new: "Heresy, Satan's denial of
what God affirms by His Christ, this is the great struggle, or
rather the only one, which sums up history." (Liturgical
Year) As
early as the fourth century, St. Ambrose said that, "There are
not enough hours in the day for me to recite even the names of all
the various sects of heretics." (St. Ambrose of Milan, 382
A.D.)
It
overlooks the wrongs done to God - "for it is praiseworthy to
give away one's own, but not another's property. And much less
should the things of God be neglected, for...'it is most wicked to
overlook the wrongs done to God.'" (St. Thomas Aquinas,
Doctor of the Church and "greatest theologian in the history
of the Church")
It
withholds necessary medicine from our neighbor and may cause his
death - "Those who take notice of what is evil in their
neighbors, and yet refrain their tongue in silence, withdraw, as
it were, the aid of medicine from observed sores, and became the
causers of death, in that they would not cure the venom which they
could have cured. The tongue, therefore, should be discreetly
curbed, not tied up fast." (Pope St. Gregory the Great,
Doctor of the Church)
It
leaves our neighbor in error - "Beseech, accuse, correct,
rebuke and fear not: for ill-judged silence leaves in their error
those who could be taught, and this is most harmful both to them
and to you who should have dispelled the error." (Pope Pius
VI, "Inscrutabile", 1775 A.D.)
It
makes us complicit in his error - "An error which is not
resisted is approved; a truth which is not defended is
suppressed... He who does not oppose an evident crime is open to
the suspicion of secret complicity." (Pope Felix III)
Leads
to religious indifferentism and
makes religion seem a matter of opinion - "Liberalism in
religion is the doctrine that there is no positive truth in
religion, but that one creed is as good as another, and this is
the teaching which is gaining substance and force daily. It is
inconsistent with any recognition of any religion, as true. It
teaches that all are to be tolerated, for all are matters of
opinion." (Cardinal Newman)
It
fails to reckon what is evil - "Now pain or sorrow for that
which is truly evil cannot be the greatest evil: for there is
something worse, namely, either not to reckon as evil that which
is really evil, or not to reject it." (St. Thomas Aquinas,
Doctor of the Church and "greatest theologian in the history
of the Church")
It
gives their false religion and their religious leaders a
"false respect". The past several decades have even seen
the giving of honors to those who should be accounted as "thieves
and robbers, who have not entered by the door" (cf. John
10:1). Even using titles they have wrongly arrogated to
themselves or condoning their wearing of certain undeserved symbols
gives them unwarranted respect and honor.
It
gives the impression that false teachings should be tolerated
rather than condemned, that unity is more important than truth.
It
may make us "responsible for their blood - We
may draw the conclusion from Acts 20:26-27 ("And so I
solemnly declare to you this day that I am not responsible for the
blood of any of you, for I did not shrink from proclaiming to you
the entire plan of God") that, perhaps, St. Paul would have
been responsible for the blood of the people if he had shrunk from
proclaiming to them the entire plan of God. In contrast, the
ecumenical movement recoils from strongly proclaiming that our
faith is the one and only true faith and instead praises other
faiths - even those who openly reject the truth. Ecumenists may
meekly state that "we have the fullness of the faith" on one hand while they tell us to praise the so-called good other
faiths have - even if these other faiths approve of abortion,
birth control, divorce, euthanasia, and other evils. Therefore, do we not
become "responsible for the blood" of those outside the Church
because we shrank from proclaiming to them the entire plan
of God?
It
fails to consider that condemnation of error is a work of mercy -
not only does it help those in error, but it also helps others not
fall into error
It
leaves them without a clear knowledge of the truth.
"It
seems to place more emphasis on their feelings than on their
salvation"
It
corresponds with Masonic thought - "Catholics...must not
forget that all roads lead to God. And they will have to accept
that this courageous idea of freethinking, which we can really
call a revolution, pouring forth from our Masonic lodges, has
spread magnificently over the dome of St. Peter's." (Yves
Marsaudon, Freemason)
"It
gives the false idea that one should not only be merciful to
persons, but also to error. One who knows that 2+3 does not equal
seven does not tolerate an endless discussion from them about how
2+3 equals 7 and allow compromises, but holds fast to the truth
and listens only enough to show them courtesy and to point out
where they are wrong and to provide proof of their error. Look at
how error was handled in the bible! That is a sure guide! No
unrealistic optimism there!"
It
fails to realize that people will not feel drawn to make
significant lifestyle changes without a compelling reason. They
really must know that it is a matter of life and death.
The
reluctance to issue anathemas leaves people unclear as to what is
right and wrong. It also "disarms the shepherd".
It
fails to realize that the Church herself - which is unable to change
- is "the principal obstacle to union" - "As has been explained by the
Archbishop of Poznan in an importunate speech during the LXXVI sitting
of the council...[he] made the point that it is untrue to say
that Protestants do not know the Catholic Church; they do know it,
and they consider it to be the principle obstacle to union."
(Amerio)
It
fails to realize that in this quest for unity, we are looking in
the wrong place - The
Church already has unity, it is those outside who do not have
unity. Ecumenists point to Jesus' prayer for unity, but this
prayer was already answered with the establishment of the Catholic
Church
and the gift of the of the Holy Spirit. Clearly, "The unity
prayed for by our Lord already exits - in the Catholic Church
alone. And, further, to bring others in and obscure Catholic teachings does not increase,
but rather decreases this unity."
It
is uncharitable - "How "nice" is it really to leave
them in error? To leave them unaware that their false faith may
lead to their eternal damnation? To not encourage them to believe
in the live-saving Eucharist and the Sacrament of Penance?"
It
gives the impression that there are no absolute truths or that the
Church does not already posses these truths, but must seek them.
It
fails to realize that dialog may pervert - As Amerio
says, "[A]s well as a dialog that converts there is a dialog
that perverts, by which one party is detached from the truth and
led into error. Or will it be pretended that truth is always
efficacious and that error never is?"
It
fails to let them know the danger they are, objectively speaking,
in. Note: Click here
for more information
It
tends to encourage Catholics to communicate in a false religion -
and "the very communicating in evil is an evil!"
It
tends to exchange important religious efforts for temporal
humanitarian efforts.
It
fails to follow the example set for us by Christ and Apostles.
Why are we being more "open" than they were? Should it not
suffice for us to be as "open" and "friendly"
as Jesus and the apostles were?
It
endangers Catholics who are presented with their "poisonous
doctrines".
It
overlooks the real differences between us and them - serious doctrinal
differences and not merely "varying manifestations
of the same reality." For example, they may
deny the hierarchical nature of Church, papal supremacy, papal
infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, Christ's true Flesh and
Blood in the Holy Eucharist (the Real Presence), the
Mass as a Sacrifice, the Sacraments, the right of the Church to
offer indulgences, they may reject and distort parts of the Bible
["But he who, to support heresy and the teaching of the
wicked, distorts the Sacred Scriptures from their genuine and true
meaning, is guilty of the greatest injury to the Word of God; and
against this crime we are warned by these words of the Price of
the Apostles: There are certain things hard to be understood,
which the unlearned and unstable, as they do also the other
Scriptures, to their destruction." (Catechism of the Council
of Trent)], they may deny the priesthood, believe in personal interpretation,
may be 'certain of their salvation', etc. They also hold
many other false doctrines that must abandoned (along with gravely
sinful actions - e.g. birth control, abortion, euthanasia, etc.). Truly, the differences between faiths are more than a matter of
mere labeling of denominations or a mere difference of expression
of doctrine, but serious matters concerning doctrines themselves
which cannot be ignored.
It
is unrealistic - "Are they suddenly going to change because
we are 'acting nicely' to them? They do not believe there are
fixed doctrines that they must believe, they interpret everything
subjectively, they do not believe in a visible structure of the
Church, they do not believe obedience is due to any prelates, they
don't believe in the Real Presence, they don't believe in papal
supremacy - and now, just because you 'pat him on the back and
call him a Christian' he will now give up all his false
concepts, change his entire life, and become a Catholic?"
It
gives support to a false "One World Church" - "And
now, overwhelmed with the deepest sadness, We ask Ourselves,
Venerable Brethren, what has become of the Catholicism of the
Sillon? Alas! This organization which formerly afforded such
promising expectations, this limpid and impetuous stream, has been
harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and
is now no more than a miserable affluent of the great movement of
apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of
a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy;
neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions; and
which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring
back to the world (if such a church could overcome) the reign of
legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and
of those who toil and suffer." (Pope St. Pius X, "Our
Apostolic Mandate", 1910 A.D.)
It
may lead Catholics to believe that the faith has changed or that
false teachings have now been approved. Note especially that
changes to external elements in the Church (e.g. changes
in the
New Rite of Mass) may give the appearance the Church has changed
her position regarding her doctrine. Although these external
changes may appeal to those outside the Church, they cause
confusion among the faithful, and even prevent the faithful from
standing together "with one mind" (for example, consider
that the ecumenical New Mass has resulted in the adoption of a
Protestant mentality regarding the Holy Eucharist by the majority
of Catholics and that those who hold to the true teachings are
often ostracized).
It
becomes harder to "stand fast with our loins girded in
truth" (cf. Eph. 6:14)
and "hold the faith as a shield" (cf. Eph. 6:16.)
when the faith is presented in ways arguably concerned more with
ecumenism than with truth (for example, consider the
new Rite of Mass) and when the ecumenical movement
encourages us to "dialog" with and "find the
good" in false faiths rather than to simply proclaim and
defend the truth.
It
seems to ignore biblical passages such as: "He who winks at a
fault causes trouble, but he who frankly reproves promotes
peace" (Prov. 10:10), "Walk with wise men and you will
become wise, but the companion of fools will fare badly" (Prov.
13:20), "Through your precepts I gain insight; therefore I
hate all false ways" (Ps. 119:104), "Severe punishment
is in store for the man who goes astray; he who hates reproof will
die" (Prov. 15:10), "[T]he flattering mouth works
ruin." (Prov. 26:28), etc. as well as the various biblical admonitions given above.
Remember that "Scripture clearly - and infallibly - instructs
us to avoid heretics, and, to remain obedient, we must do
this." Should anyone attempt to circumvent Holy Scripture,
he will offend God. Even the Church has no authority to overturn
Sacred Scripture.
It
seems forgetful of the fact that God is a "jealous God"
(cf. Ex. 20:5, Ex. 34:14, Deut. 4:24, Deut. 5:9, Deut. 6:15, Josh.
24:19, Nahum 1:2).
It
gives the false idea that we are "in the same Federation of
the Faithful" even though they have corrupt doctrine - "For
which reason, since charity is based on a complete and sincere
faith, the disciples of Christ must be united principally by the
bond of one faith. Who then can conceive a Christian Federation,
the members of which retain each his own opinions and private
judgment, even in matters which concern the object of faith, even
though they be repugnant to the opinions of the rest? And in what
manner, We ask, can men who follow contrary opinions, belong to
one and the same Federation of the faithful?" (Pope Pius XI, "Mortalium Animos",
1928 A.D.)
Ignores
the fact that sometimes separation is good - "Separation can
be pleasant...because it removes something contrary to a thing's
perfection... Separation from things hurtful and corruptive is
desired, in so far as they destroy the unity which is due.
Wherefore the desire for such like separation is not the
first cause of sorrow, whereas the craving for unity is."
(St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church and "greatest
theologian in the history of the Church", emphasis added) And,
as
Scripture says (emphasis added), "Do not be yoked with those who are different, with unbelievers. For what partnership do righteousness and lawlessness have? Or what fellowship does light have with darkness? What accord has Christ with Beliar? Or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For
we are the temple of the living God; as God said: 'I will live with them and move among them, and I will be their God and they shall be my people.
Therefore, come forth from them and be separate,' says the Lord,
'and touch nothing unclean; then I will receive you and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me,
says the Lord Almighty.'" (2 Cor. 6:14-18)
Ignores
the fact that a false union only brings destruction - "But
some through enthusiasm for an imprudent 'eirenism' seem
to consider as an obstacle to the restoration of fraternal union,
things founded on the laws and principles given by Christ and
likewise on institutions founded by Him, or which are the defense
and support of the integrity of the faith, and the removal of
which would bring about the union of all, but only to their
destruction." (Pope Pius XII, "Humani Generis",
1950 A.D.)
It
ignores the fact that true unity doesn't arise simply because
people who believe differently "tolerate each other" or
"get along". Can one possibly conceive of Jesus - Truth itself
- allowing all his followers to believe differently - some believing
truth and some believing dangerous error (even error that may
lead them to hell) - and praising their "unity" simply
because they managed to get along with each other?
It
tends to act as if those outside the Church are "not basing
their eternal salvation on errors and lies", that their
errors are no longer "dangerous" and their creeds no
longer "deadly". It seems to forget that Satan has been
called "the author of every error".
Should
a Protestant convert in our age, they may feel it was a wasted effort,
considering that the Catholic Church has recently adopted so many
of the Protestant-inspired practices (e.g. consider the changes in
the Mass)
It
gives the false idea that charity lies in the toleration of false
ideas - "But Catholic doctrine tells us that the primary duty
of charity does not lie in the toleration of false ideas, however
sincere they may be; nor in theoretical or practical indifference
toward the errors and vices in which we see our brethren plunged,
but in the zeal for their intellectual and moral improvement as
well as for their material well-being." (Pope St. Pius X,
"Our Apostolic Mandate", 1910 A.D.)
Ignores
the fact that truth must be "exclusive and intolerant
of error."
Ignores
the fact that there is a clear danger that Catholics may be
"swept away" during the dialoging process.
Remember that those outside the church may offer a "seductive
philosophy" (cf. Col 2:8) which appeals to our
fallen nature. For example, consider that in the Catholic Church,
one must meet the Sunday obligation under penalty of mortal sin,
one must be obedient, refrain from contraception, detraction,
occasions of sin, etc. and hope that one will be saved. In
a false 'Christianity', the person may have no obligations, owe no
obedience, and have no restraints whatsoever on their
"freedom" - and all this with a "guarantee" of
salvation.
It
fails to convey the serious message that they cannot accept Christ
and not the Church - "not without sorrow we can hear
people--whom we wish to believe are well-intentioned but who are
certainly misguided in their attitude - continually claiming to
love Christ but without the Church, to listen to Christ but not
the Church, to belong to Christ but outside the Church. The
absurdity of this dichotomy is clearly evident in this phrase of
the Gospel: 'Anyone who rejects you rejects me.' And how can one
wish to love Christ without loving the Church, if the finest
witness to Christ is that of St. Paul: 'Christ loved the Church
and sacrificed himself for her' (Eph 5:25)?" (Pope Paul VI,
1975)
Ignores
the fact that "truths are to be announced and taught with
authority." ("Dialog is not biblical, preaching
is!") Dialog also tends to give the false impression that truths
are somehow subject to argument or dispute or that they are merely
personal opinions.
Ignores
the fact that the doctrines of heretics draw persons into hell:
"I suppose the gates of hell ['and the gates of hell shall
not prevail against it' (Mt. 16:18)] to mean vice and sin, or at
least the doctrines of heretics by which men are ensnared and
drawn into hell." (St. Jerome, Doctor of the Church)
It
causes us to apparently "water down" our doctrines and
practices (or at least not to speak of them - e.g. purgatory) in
order to avoid offending those who reject truth. "Since when
are we called to avoid giving offense to those who offend
God?"
It
calls us to be more "politically correct" religiously and, contrary to
Scripture, calls us to be more worldly.
It
tends to give the impression that we may be willing to compromise on matters of faith.
It
substitutes a horizontal view (our neighbor) for the more
appropriate vertical focus (God).
It
tends to substitute "tolerance" for fidelity.
It
prevents Catholics from taking the necessary precautions to
protect their faith. For example, consider Pope Leo XIII's advice
regarding Freemasonry: -"In a matter of such importance and
where the seduction is so easy in these times, it is urgent that
the Christian watch himself from the beginning. He should fear the
least danger, avoid every occasion, and take the greatest
precautions. Use all the prudence of the serpent, while keeping in
your heart the simplicity of the dove, according to the
evangelical counsel" (Pope Leo XIII, "Custodi Di Quella",
1892 A.D.) Scripture
is clear that false prophets will deceive many. We know that we should
expect persecution and that our faith may be in danger.
Clearly, we should be watchful to protect ourselves. In contrast,
the ecumenical movement teaches us to "dialog" and
engage in religious activities with those who reject the truth. We
are also instructed to "find the good" in their
distorted creeds. Obviously, "dialoging" with professed
enemies of the Church poses a great spiritual danger for the
faithful.
It
ignores the fact that dialog cannot continue forever - "at
some point, dialog must come to an end. Once you have preached and
answered objections, there is not more left to say. You cannot
change your teachings. You have to let them make their own
personal choice of what to do."
Ignores
the fact that we are a Church Militant - "Christians are,
moreover, born for combat, whereof the greater the vehemence, the
more assured, God aiding, the triumph: 'Have confidence; I have
overcome the world.' Nor is there any ground for alleging that
Jesus Christ, the Guardian and Champion of the Church, needs not
in any manner the help of men. Power certainly is not wanting to
Him, but in His loving kindness He would assign to us a share in
obtaining and applying the fruits of salvation procured through
His grace. The chief elements of this duty consist in professing
openly and unflinchingly the Catholic doctrine, and in propagating
it to the utmost of our power. For, as is often said, with the
greatest truth, there is nothing so hurtful to Christian wisdom as
that it should not be known, since it possesses, when loyally
received, inherent power to drive away error. So soon as Catholic
truth is apprehended by a simple and unprejudiced soul, reason
yields assent." (Pope Leo XIII, "Sapientiae Christianae",
1890 A.D.)
Ignores
the fact that Jesus says "Whoever listens to you listens to
me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects
the one who sent me." (Lk. 10:16) Does not the ecumenists'
very actions seem to state that "It's okay not to
receive those whom He sent"?
It
ignores the fact that "unity" can be a bad thing - one
can be in "unity" with the devil.
Jesus
didn't seek any kind of unity - he sought a particular kind of
unity which necessarily excluded those who could not accept his
teachings. Had he only sought an easy, natural unity, he never
would have been crucified. "Unity is of great value, but only
unity in truth. This is also the only true unity. Fidelity do
Divine Revelation, which is fidelity towards God, is infinitely
more important than all unity." (Von Hildebrand)
It
overlooks the fact that unity must be grounded in truth - "To
deplore disunity as such, instead of deploring heresies, instead
of condemning these and calling them by their name, implies first
of all that one would keep unity even at the cost of truth. But,
of course, true unity presupposes unity in truth. Error,
falsehood, can never be the basis for true unity. That holy,
supernatural unity of which our Lord speaks in the priestly prayer
ut unum sint - that all may be one - can come to pass only in the
profession of divine truth, in the membership of the Mystical Body
of Christ [that is, the Catholic Church]. It is a unity which
includes some but, by the same token, excludes others. As Father
Werenfried van Straaten reminds us, 'Jesus' prayer 'that all may
be one'... may not be separated from His other words: 'I say unto
you that whoever does not enter by the door of the sheepfold is a
thief and a rubber...I am the door!'... Even on the natural level,
unity that is not grounded in truth is either a very silly or a
very dangerous thing." (Von Hildebrand)
Jesus
never sent all persons out indiscriminately to preach his message
or to "dialog"- rather he sent out only certain select
disciples which he had personally chosen and taught to preach
to others. Remember further that all persons do not have
the innate ability to discuss their faith with others. Some may do
more harm than good.
It
ignores the fact that Jesus never said the flock could "stay
where they were", but said they must be gathered into His one fold, that
is the Catholic Church.
The
items often "omitted" from Catholic teaching because they offend Protestants nurture
falsehood - "[F]alsehood is as easily nurtured by omissions as by positive
misstatements." (Liturgical Year)
It
tends to emphasize what we agree on rather than where we disagree.
However, what is important is precisely what we disagree
on, not where we agree.
It
ignores the fact that Scripture repeatedly warns us about false
teachers. Now we are not warned of any dangers, but are instead
told to "dialog" with them and "find the good"
in their false beliefs.
It
causes the removal of all safeguards for the faithful.
Heresy
should not receive toleration, but hatred! Heresy is an offense
against God! Note: One must "hate the heresy but love the
heretic."
It
is a grave offense not to work for the elimination of heresy,
especially in our day: "[I]t is a grave offence not to work
for the extermination of heresy when this monstrous infection
requires action" (Council of Vienne)
"Truth
and error cannot be reconciled - error must change to side of
truth"
It
appears to be a "pretended search for truth" - how can
one search for something he already possesses? Can one
imagine Jesus allowing his teachings to be looked upon as equal
with teachings of false religions, or for it to be thought that he
was looking to them to find truth that he did not already posses?
The idea of such things is clearly absurd.
It
may scandalize those outside the Church who can't reconcile the Church's
ecumenical behavior with Gospel precepts (e.g. not
associating with heretics, failing to condemn error, etc.).
It
effectively calls into question the past history of the Church - as
if she was mistaken in her actions for all these many centuries
in combating heresy and uprooting error.
It
is wrong to "seek the good" in the beliefs of those who
promote dangerous doctrines which may cause the loss of souls. "Would one praise a poisoned
glass of water because it contains some 'good' water?"
It
would be wrong to believe that all persons in all religions were
genuinely seeking the truth, regardless of where it lies. Many
(most?) are simply holding to their existing beliefs, or what they
are most comfortable with, or what they would most like to be
true, wrong or not. Many are proud, many simply reject the idea
that they must submit to an authority - that they must offer
obedience, and many prefer comfortable half-truths to less
comfortable full truths. Should such persons be treated so
tenderly, as if they were 'innocent victims' of their false
religion?
It
would be wrong to do what others would like us to do if it is
contrary to their best interests.
Contrary
to Scripture, ecumenists reject harsh and accusatory statements. For
example, consider that St. Paul says that those who teach
different doctrines are "conceited, understanding nothing,
and [have] a morbid disposition for arguments and verbal disputes.
From these come envy, rivalry, insults, evil suspicions, and
mutual friction among people with corrupted minds, who are
deprived of the truth, supposing religion to be a means of
gain" (1 Tm. 6:4-5).
In contrast, ecumenists say that we should "dialog" with
those who teach false doctrines and that we should "find the
good" in their beliefs since they contain "elements of
truth" - even if they are admitted enemies of the Church.
Ecumenists clearly look down on harsh, accusatory statements like
those St. Paul makes in Scripture against teachers of false
doctrines.
It
employs "flattering speech" and "seeks praise from
human beings", in direct contradiction with St. Paul's
behavior (cf. 1 Thes. 2:1-16). We see that St. Paul did not
appear with flattering speech or seek praise from human beings. He
also makes harsh statements about those who persecuted them,
including a reference to their incurring the wrath of God. Even
Christ himself called St. Peter "Satan" when he tried to
stand in his way (cf. Mt. 16:23).
Modern ecumenists, by contrast, employ flattering speech, may seek
praise from those outside the Church, and avoid (like the plague)
harsh statements about those opposed to the Church - and may even
offer them flattery or at least a degree of understanding or
sympathy, despite the fact that many of them hold dangerous
doctrines, such as permissibility of divorce, birth control,
abortion, euthanasia, etc.
May
employ a false "medicine of mercy". In contrast to the ecumenists, we see that St. Paul did not employ a "medicine
of mercy" when he handed Hymenaeus and Alexander over to
Satan (1 Tm. 1:18-20). We also do not see a "medicine of
mercy" being offered to those who lied to St. Peter and were
struck dead (see Acts 5:1-11). In
fact, where would the Church be today if St. Peter and St. Paul
and others for the last 2,000 or so years employed the ecumenists'
"medicine of mercy" (i.e. ignoring or tolerating error -
or gentle rejections of it)? Remember, the Church has never been
lacking in enemies since Jesus founded it upon Peter and only
diligent condemnations and great effort have preserved its
doctrines intact all these years - years that have seen the coming
and going of entire civilizations.
It
may cause one of the greatest weapons of all - prayer - to be put
aside - "If we act as if they are okay where they are, we may
not be praying for their conversion or encouraging such
prayer." And clearly, only God has the ability to change
their hearts. Our efforts are vain by comparison.
With
false ecumenism, no measures are taken to protect the flock.
Contrary to the entire tradition of the Church, are we now to believe
we have no enemies? That there are no perils for our souls? That
there is no longer evil in the world? That we have no more reason
to fight? That errors are no longer dangerous? That the toleration
of heretics is no longer injurious? "The toleration of
heretics is more injurious than the devastation of the provinces
by the barbarians."
(Pope St. Gelasius I, 5th century A.D.)
False
ecumenism seems to fail entirely to consider that heresies afflict
Christ: "Christ...is afflicted beyond measure by the diverse
heresies multiplying around Him" (St.
Bede the Venerable, Doctor of the Church)
False
ecumenism fails to realize that "unity should be
communicated, not sought." It is our duty to communicate this unity,
it is their duty to accept it.
False
ecumenism doesn't encourage conversion - it actually discourages
it (e.g. why must I convert if I am not in danger?).
It
ignores the fact that Jesus - Truth itself - wants one fold, under
one shepherd - not many folds under many shepherds "agreeing
to coexist peacefully", some in truth and some in error.
It
us uncharitable to avoid pointing out that they are in 'quicksand'
- especially when help is readily available for them!
For
priests, it may be considered a betrayal of their ministry: "If
it be necessary - and it is everyone's duty - to fight error and
repel vice, the soul of the priest must be ever open to
compassion. Error must be fought with all our might, but the
brother who errs must be loved intensely and brought to salvation.
How much good have the saints not done, how many admirable deeds
have they not performed by their kindness even in circumstances
and in environments penetrated by lies and degraded by vice? Of a
truth, he who to please men would gloss over their evil
inclinations or be indulgent about their incorrect ways of
thinking or acting, thereby prejudicing Christian teaching and
integrity of morals, would be betraying his ministry." (Pope
Pius XII, "Menti Nostrae", 1950 A.D.)
It
seems contrary to the actions of a good shepherd: "The task
of the good shepherd in the Gospel parable is, on this view, no
longer to lead back those who have strayed, but just to leave the
door of the sheepfold open for any sheep who may choose to wander
in. This is hardly the sort of fold we expect from a good
shepherd." (Amerio) Further, consider how false ecumenism which
tolerates endless errors entirely contradicts Pope Pius IX's
directive "So, in accordance with your pastoral care, work
assiduously to protect and preserve this faith. Never cease to
instruct all men in it, to encourage the wavering, to convince
dissenters, to strengthen the weak in faith by never tolerating
and letting pass anything which could in the slightest degree
defile the purity of this faith. With the same great strength of
mind, foster in all men their unity with the Catholic Church,
outside of which there is no salvation; also foster their
obedience towards this See of Peter on which rests the entire
structure of our most holy religion." (Pope Pius IX,
"Qui Pluribus", 1846 A.D.)
It
fails to consider that dialog
brings various dangers - "[E]ngaging Catholics in dialog
could weaken our overall position - since they might do it poorly
and teach erroneously about what we believe and interject their
own opinions into it." Further, many Catholics are poorly
catechized and a large number hold erroneous, even heretical,
views (e.g. it is widely reported that about 70% of Catholics no
longer believe in the Real Presence, a large number also do not
even believe in the Resurrection). Not only are many Catholics
generally ill-prepared to answer
arguments, they may also give a bad impression of Catholics. Remember further that
"not all people are capable of dialoging with everyone why might
happen to cross their path - most aren't. All people have
different capabilities." Calling all lay Catholics to "dialog" with those
outside the Church may actually drive both parties further
from the Church.
Scripture
warns us of the dangers in the last days where people "always
trying to learn but never able to reach a knowledge of the
truth" (2 Tm. 3:7) and that people will "oppose the
truth - people of depraved mind, unqualified in the faith" (2
Tm. 3:8) and that "wicked people and charlatans will go from
bad to worse, deceivers and deceived" (2 Tm. 3:13). The
ecumenists, however, want us to "dialog" even with
professed enemies of the Church and do not appear to have a great
concern about whether the faithful will be able to hold onto their
beliefs when "dialoging" with wicked, deceitful people
who have gone from bad to worse.
While
Scripture tells prelates to "proclaim the word; be persistent
whether it is convenient or inconvenient; convince,
reprimand" (cf. 2 Tm. 4:2) and warns that the time will come when people will
not tolerate sound doctrine and will stop listening to truth (cf.
2 Tm. 4:3-4), ecumenists tell us to simply "dialog" with those
who reject truth. Rather than issuing reprimands as Scripture
instructs and "proclaim[ing] the word; be persistent whether
it is convenient or inconvenient", ecumenists simply want us
to "dialog" with the world, avoid condemnations and reprimands, "find the good" in false faiths, and
"come to the truth together" (as if it we did not
already possess it). Frankly, their behavior may leave one
wondering if they have ever picked up a Bible!
In
another of St. Paul's non-ecumenical statements (2 Tm. 4:14-15),
we see that he tells the faithful to be on guard against an
individual who resists his preaching and tells them that the Lord
will repay this person for the harm he caused. The ecumenists, by
contrast, would have us "dialog" with resistant persons
or "find the good" in their belief systems. We may even
be encouraged to engage in religious activities with them, and we
would certainly be admonished not to issue harsh statements like
the "Lord will repay them" for the harm they do.
The
ecumenical movement skirts the petition we make to the Lord to
"lead us not into temptation" by encouraging us to jump
right into situations where the faithful could be tempted to learn
about false, but seductive, doctrines, and thereby fall away from
the true faith. In fact, we are, in a sense, inclined to view
false faiths favorably since the ecumenists direct us to
"look for the good" in these false faiths.
It
fails to consider that rather
than quietly tolerating the errors of others, there is much to be gained by laying such errors
bare: "And since, in order that the deceits of the enemy may
be avoided, it is necessary first of all that they be laid bare;
since much is to be gained by denouncing these fallacies for the
sake of the unwary" (Pope Pius XI, "Casti Connubii",
1930 A.D.) As the Council of
Trent states, "is not enough to declare the truth, if
errors be not laid bare and repudiated".
Heresies
should not be quietly tolerated and allowed to grow - "For
although you have said that there must be heresies to test the
faithful, still they must be destroyed at their very birth by your
intercession and help, so they do not grow or wax strong like
wolves." (Pope Leo X, "Exsurge Domine", 1520 A.D.) As
St. Jerome has stated regarding the heretic Arius, "Arius was but one
spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out,
the whole earth was laid waste by its flame." (St.
Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church and "greatest theologian
in the history of the Church", quoting St. Jerome, Doctor of
the Church)
Ecumenism
has actually brought us further from certain groups (e.g.
schismatics whose beliefs are closest to ours - i.e. the Orthodox)
and closer to later heretics (Protestants). Therefore, we now
appear further away from those who were formerly closest to us.
It
tends to forget that "there is only one true and absolute
religion - Catholicism." All other religions were
created by men and contain falsehoods. And, "unless
those outside the true religion convert, there will always
be separation between us and them, as there must be."
It
fails to emphasize that there are absolute truths that absolutely
must be believed for salvation - and that one must be Catholic for
salvation (click here).
It
tends to place the true religion on the same level as false
religions. Such an action has always been considered sinful and
can only lead to God's displeasure.
It
threatens the Church's ability to "guard the integrity of
the faith" (e.g. since specifically Catholic practices are
changed to please those outside the Church, since anathemas are
avoided, since error is not forcefully condemned, etc.): "The
Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has
done nothing with greater zeal and endeavor than she has displayed
in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as
rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held
beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own."
(Pope Leo XIII, "Satis Cognitum", 1896 A.D.)
It
seems to be more zealous for unity than for God's glory: "If
the fear of some disturbance is stronger than our zeal for God's
glory and prevents us from speaking the truth, how shall we dare
in the presence of the Christian people to celebrate the holy
martyrs, whose glory lies in the very fact that they carried out
in their lives the words: 'Even unto death fight for
justice'?" (St.
Cyril of Alexandria)
Heresy
must be avoided and errors must be shunned. As Canon Law has
said, "It is not enough to avoid heresy, but one must
also carefully shun all errors which more or less approach it;
hence all must observe the constitutions and decrees by which the
Holy See has proscribed and forbidden dangerous opinions of that
sort." (1917 Code of Canon
Law, Can. 1324) In fact, heresy is like
a contagious disease that we must keep a distance from. It is
certainly not charitable to allow a contagious person to
infect others simply to avoid hurting his feelings.
It
tolerates too much forbearance: "Some there are, indeed, who
maintain that it is not opportune boldly to attack evil-doing in
its might and when in the ascendant, lest, as they say, opposition
should exasperate minds already hostile. These make it a matter of
guesswork as to whether they are for the Church or against her,
since on the one hand they give themselves out as professing the
Catholic faith, and yet wish that the Church should allow certain
opinions, at variance with her teaching, to be spread abroad with
impunity. They moan over the loss of faith and the perversion of
morals, yet trouble themselves not to bring any remedy; nay, not
seldom, even add to the intensity of the mischief through too much
forbearance or harmful dissembling." (Pope Leo XIII, "Sapientiae
Christianae", 1890 A.D.)
|
