Chapter
III
THE
PASTORAL PROBLEMS POSED BY THE ECUMENISM
31.
Besides the fact that it depends on heterodox theses, the
ecumenism is harmful for souls, in the sense that it relativizes
the Catholic faith indispensable for salvation, and it deters
from the Catholic Church, the unique ark of salvation. The
Catholic Church no longer acts as the lighthouse of truth
that enlightens hearts and dissipates error, but rather
submerges humanity in the fog of religious indifferentism,
and soon into the darkness of the “silent apostasy”.102
The Ecumenism begets relativism of the faith
It
relativizes the harmful breaks made by the heretics
32.
Ecumenical dialogue dissimulates the sin against the faith
that heresy commits – the formal reason for the rupture
– in order to emphasize the sin against charity, imputed
arbitrarily to the heretic as well as the child of the Church.
It ends up finally denying the sin against the faith
that constitutes heresy. So John Paul II affirms, concerning
the monophysite heresy: “The divisions which have occurred
were due largely to misunderstandings”,103
adding: “the doctrinal formulations which separate them
from the formulas in use […] concern the same content.”104
Such affirmations disavow the Magisterium nonetheless infallible
in condemning these heresies.
It
pretends that the faith of the Church can be perfected by
the “riches” of the others
33.
Even if the Second Vatican Council specifies, in well moderated
terms, the nature of the “enrichment” given by dialogue
– “truer knowledge and more just appreciation of the teaching
and religious life of both communions”105
– the ecumenical practice of this Pontificate distorts this
affirmation into an enrichment of the faith. The Church
abandons a partial view in order to grasp the reality in
its integrity: “The polemics and the intolerant controversies
have often transformed into incompatible affirmations that
which was in fact the result of two researches investigating
the same reality, two different points of view. Today
we must find the formula that, taking hold of this reality
in its integrity, permits us to overcome the half-reading
and to eliminate erroneous interpretations.”106
And so it is that “the exchange of gifts between the Churches,
in their complementarities, renders the communion
fruitful.”107
If these affirmations presuppose that the Church is not
definitively and integrally the guardian of the treasure
of the faith, they are not in conformity with the traditional
doctrine of the Church. This is why the Magisterium warned
against this false valorization of the supposed riches of
the other churches: “In coming back to the Church, they
lose nothing of the good which by the grace of God is realized
in them up till now, but rather by their return this good
will be completed and lead to perfection. Nonetheless one
will avoid speaking of this in such a way as to imply that
on coming back to the Church they imaging giving an essential
element to her that was missing until now.”108
It
relativizes the adhesion to certain dogmas of the faith
34.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the faith has certainly
reorganized the supposed “hierarchy of the truths in Catholic
Doctrine”:109
this hierarchy “signifies that certain dogmas are based
on others, more fundamental, which illumine them. But all
these dogmas being revealed, each must be believed with
the same divine faith.”110
Yet the ecumenical practice of John Paul II is independent
of this authentic interpretation. For example, in his address
to the Evangelical “Church”, he underlines “that which is
important”: “You know that during several decades, my life
has been marked by the experience of the challenges which
atheism and incredulity launch against Christianity. I have
all the more clearly before my eyes that which is important:
our common profession in Jesus Christ. […] Jesus Christ
is our salvation, for all. […] By the force of the Holy
Spirit, we become His brethren, truly and essentially children
of God. […] Thanks to the consideration of the Confession
of Augsburg and of numerous reunions, we have newly become
aware of the fact that we believe and that we profess this
together.”111
Leo XIII had only condemnation for this sort of ecumenical
practice, which finds its apotheosis in the Declaration
on Justification: “They believe that it is opportune, in
order to gain the hearts of those who have wandered, to
relativise certain points of doctrine as being of less importance,
or to mollify the sense to such an extent that they no longer
understand them in the sense that the Church has always
held. There is no need of many words to show how much this
concept is condemnable.” 112
It
permits a “permanent reform” of dogmatic formulas
35.
The latitude that the ecumenical practice gives itself concerning
dogmatic formulas has already been said. It only remains
to show the importance of this procedure in the ecumenical
process: “The deepening of the communion in a constant reform,
realized by the light of the Apostolic Tradition is without
doubt one of the most important and distinctive characteristics
of ecumenism. […] The decree on ecumenism (UR nº6)
mentions the way of formulating doctrine as one of the elements
of continuing reform.”113
Such a procedure has been condemned by Pius XII : “In theology
some want to reduce to a minimum the meaning of dogmas;
and to free dogma itself from terminology long established
in the Church and from philosophical concepts held by Catholic
teachers. […] It is evident […] from what We have already
said, that such tentatives not only lead to what they call
dogmatic relativism, but that they actually contain it.
[…] Everyone is aware that the terminology employed in the
schools and even that used by the Teaching Authority of
the Church itself is capable of being perfected and polished;
[…] It is also manifest that the Church cannot be bound
to every system of philosophy that has existed for a short
space of time. Nevertheless, the things that have been composed
through common effort by Catholic teachers over the course
of the centuries to bring about some understanding of dogma
are certainly not based on any such weak foundation. […]
Hence it is not astonishing that some of these notions have
not only been used by the Ecumenical Councils, but even
sanctioned by them, so that it is wrong to depart from them.”114
It
refuses to teach without ambiguity the integral content
of the Catholic faith
36.
The ecumenical axiom that states “The way and method in
which the Catholic faith is expressed should never become
an obstacle to dialogue with our brethren”115
succeeds in solemnly signed common declarations that are
equivocal and ambivalent. In the Common Declaration on
Justification for example, the infusion of sanctifying
grace116
in the soul of the just is never clearly taught; the only
sentence that makes some allusion is so awkward that it
could leave the opposite to be believed: “Justifying grace
never becomes a human possession to which one could appeal
against God.”117
Such practices no longer respect the duty to teach the Catholic
faith integrally and without ambiguity, as something “to
be believed”: “Catholic Doctrine must be proposed integrally
and in its entirety; one must not pass over in silence or
hide in ambiguous terms that which the Catholic truth teaches
on the true nature and the stages of justification, on the
constitution of the Church, on the primacy of jurisdiction
of the Roman Pontiff, on the true union by the return of
separated Christians to the unique true Church of Christ.”118
It
puts on an equal level the authentic saints and the pretended
“saints”.
37.
In publishing a common martyrology of the different Christian
confessions, John Paul II puts on an equal level the authentic
saints and the supposed “saints”. This forgets the words
of Saint Augustine: “If, remaining separated from the Church,
he is persecuted by an enemy of Christ […] and this enemy
of Christ says to him who is separated from the Church of
Christ: ‘offer up incense to idols, adore my gods’ and kills
him because he refuses, he could shed his blood, but not
receive the crown.”119
If the Church hopes piously that the separated brother dies
for the Christ with perfect charity, she cannot affirm this.
By her just rights, she presumes that the ‘obex’,
the obstacle of visible separation, was an obstacle to the
act of perfect charity that is the essence of martyrdom.
She thus cannot canonize him nor inscribe him in the martyrology.120
It
provokes a loss of the faith
38.
Relativist, evolutionist and ambiguous, this ecumenism directly
induces the loss of the faith. Its first victim is the President
of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Unity of
Christians, Cardinal Kasper himself, when he affirms for
example on the subject of justification that “Our personal
worth does not depend on our woks, whether they are good
or bad: even before acting, we are accepted and we have
received the ‘yes’ of God”;121
again concerning the Mass and the priesthood that “it is
not the priest who works the transubstantiation: the priest
prays to the Father in order that He become present by the
operation of the Holy Spirit. […] The necessity of the ordained
ministry is a sign that suggests and gives a taste of the
gratuity of the Eucharistic sacrament.” 122
The Ecumenism pushes souls away from the Church
39.
Not only does this ecumenism destroy the Catholic faith,
it also pushes heretics, schematics and infidels away from
the Church.
It
no longer demands the conversion of heretics and schismatics
40.
The ecumenical movement no longer searches for their conversion
and their return to the “unique fold of Christ, outside
of which are certainly those who are not united to the Holy
See of Peter.”123
This is clearly stated: “We reject [uniatism] as a method
to find unity. […] The pastoral action of the Catholic Church,
both Latin and Eastern no longer tends to make the faithful
pass from one church to another.”124
From this follows the suppression of the ceremony of abjuration
in the case of a heretic returning to the Catholic Church.
Cardinal Kasper goes very far in these kind of affirmations:
“Ecumenism is not done by renouncing our own faith tradition.
No Church can practice this renouncement.”125
He adds as well: “We can describe the ‘ethos’ proper to
ecumenism in the following fashion: the renouncement to
every form of proselytism whether open or camouflaged.”126
This is radically opposed to the constant practice of the
Popes throughout the centuries, who have always worked for
the return of dissidents to the unique Church. 127
It
begets egalitarianism between the Christian confessions
41.
The ecumenical practice engenders egalitarianism between
the Catholics and other Christians, for example when John
Paul II rejoices in the fact that “the expression ‘separated
brethren’ tends to be substituted by terms more apt to evoke
the profundity of the communion linked to the baptismal
character. […] The consciousness of a common belonging to
Christ deepens. […] The ‘universal brotherhood’ of Christians
has become a strong ecumenical conviction.”128
And moreover, the Catholic Church Herself is practically
put on equal footing with the separated Communities: we
have already made mention of the expression “sister-churches”;
John Paul II rejoices also that “the Directory for the
application of the principles and the norms concerning ecumenism
calls the communities to which these Christians of ‘the
Churches and the ecclesial communities who are not in full
communion with the Catholic Church’. […] Relegating to oblivion
the excommunications of the past, the communities, once
rivals, today help each other.”129
To rejoice because of this is to forget that “to recognize
the quality of a Church the schism of Photius and that of
the Anglicans […] favors religious indifferentism […] and
stops the conversion of non-Catholics to the true and unique
Church.”130
It
humbles the Church and makes haughty the dissidents
42.
The ecumenical practice of repentance deters the infidels
from the Catholic Church, in view of the false image that
she gives of herself. If it is possible to carry before
God the fault of those who have preceded us,131
on the other hand the practice of repentance such as we
know it leaves it believed that it is the Catholic Church
as such who is sinner, seeing that it is her who asks pardon.
The first to believe this is Cardinal Kasper: “The Second
Vatican Council recognized that the Catholic Church had
been responsible for the division of Christians and underlined
that the reestablishing of unity presupposed the conversion
of each to the Lord”.132
The justifying texts thus don’t mean a thing: the ecclesial
note of holiness, so powerful to attract wandering souls
to the unique fold, has been tarnished. These repentances
are thus gravely imprudent, because they humiliate the Catholic
Church and make haughty the dissidents. From which the Holy
Office warns: “They [the bishops] in teaching the history
of the Reform and the Reformers, will carefully avoid, and
with a real insistence, not to exaggerate the defects of
Catholics and to hide the faults of the Reformers, or to
put into light some elements mostly accidental such as not
to see or no longer perceive that which is essential, the
defection from the Catholic faith.”133
Conclusion
43.
Considered from a pastoral aspect, one must say that the
ecumenism of the last decades that it leads Catholics to
a “silent apostasy” and that it dissuades non-Catholics
from entering into the unique ark of salvation. One must
reprobate “the impiety of those who close to men the gates
of the Kingdom of heaven [134] ”. Under the guise of searching
for unity, this ecumenism disperses the flock; it does not
carry the mark of Christ, but that of the divider par excellence,
the devil.
GENERAL
CONCLUSION
44. As attractive as it may first seem, as spectacular
as his ceremonies might be watch on the Television, as numerous
as the gathered crowds might be, the reality remains: the
ecumenism has made of the Holy City the Church a city in
ruins. Following a utopian ideal – the unity of the human
race – the Pope has not realized how much this ecumenism
which he has pursued is truly and sadly revolutionary: it
inverts the order willed by God.
45.
Ecumenism is revolutionary, and it affirms itself as revolutionary.
One remains impressed by the succession of texts that remind
us of this: “The deepening of communion in a constant
reform […] is without a doubt one of the most important
and distinctive traits of ecumenism.”135
“On taking the idea which John XIII had expressed at the
opening of the Council, the Decree on ecumenism represents
the formulation of doctrine as one of the elements of continuing
reform.”136
At times this affirmation is adorned with ecclesiastical
unction in order to become a “conversion”. In the case in
point, there is very little difference. In the two cases,
that which existed before is rejected: “ ‘Convert’. There
is no ecumenical reconciliation without conversion
and renewal. There is no conversion from one confession
to another. […] Everyone must convert. We must not ask firstly
‘what is wrong with the other’, but rather ‘what is wrong
with us; where should we begin to clean house?’”137
Typical of its revolutionary characteristic, this ecumenism
makes an appeal to the people: “In ecumenical activity,
the faithful of the Catholic Church […] will consider, with
loyalty and attention, all that has need to be renovated
in the catholic family itself.”138
Truly in this aggiornamento, this state of intoxication,
the head has need to be overrun by the members: “The ecumenical
movement is a somewhat complex process, and it would be
an error to wait, from the catholic side, that everything
be done by Rome. […] The intuitions, the challenges must
also come from local Churches, and much must be done on
a local level before the universal Church makes it her own.”139
46.
In these sorrowful circumstances, how can we not hear the
cry of the Angel at Fatima: “Penance, Penance, Penance”?
In this utopian dream, the coming back to good sense must
be radical. One must come back to the wise experience of
the Church, synthesized by Pope Pius XI: “The union of Christians
cannot be attained other than by favoring the return of
dissidents to the only true Church of Christ, which they
have had the misfortune of leaving.”140
Such is the true and charitable pastoral action for those
who err, such ought to be the prayer of the Church: “We
desire that the common prayer of the whole Mystical Body
[that is to say, the whole Catholic Church] rise towards
God in order that all the wandering sheep rejoin the unique
fold of Jesus Christ.” 141
47.
Waiting for this happy hour when reason will return,
we keep for our part the wise advice and the firm wisdom
that we have received from our founder: “We wish to be in
perfect unity with the Holy Father, but in the unity of
the Catholic faith, because it is only this unity that can
unite us, and not a sort of ecumenical union, a sort of
liberal ecumenism; because I believe that the crisis in
the Church is best defined by this liberal ecumenical spirit.
I say liberal ecumenism, because there does exist a certain
ecumenism that, if it is well defined, could be acceptable.
But liberal ecumenism, such as it is practice by the present
Church and especially since the Second Vatican Council,
includes veritable heresies.”142
Adding to this our prayers to heaven, where we implore Christ
for His Body which is the Catholic Church, saying: “Salvum
me fac, Domine, quoniam defecit sanctus, quoniam diminutæ
sunt veritates a filiis hominum. Vana locuti sunt unusquisque
ad proximum suum : labia dolosa il corde et corde locuti
sunt. Disperdat Dominus universa labia dolosa et linguam
magniloquam.143
