FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Ecumenism in the pre-vatican II church,Existent or Nonexistent?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Was their any ecumenism in the early church or medieval church period?
(05-03-2010, 07:19 AM)St.Ambrose Wrote: [ -> ]Was their any ecumenism in the early church or medieval church period?

Ecumenism - Yes

Today's false ecumenism - No, for this is clearly condemned.
(05-03-2010, 07:45 AM)Nic Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-03-2010, 07:19 AM)St.Ambrose Wrote: [ -> ]Was their any ecumenism in the early church or medieval church period?

Ecumenism - Yes

Today's false ecumenism - No, for this is clearly condemned.

What do you mean?

What is the difference between true and false ecumenism?


John Paul II False ecumenist?
(05-03-2010, 07:48 AM)St.Ambrose Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-03-2010, 07:45 AM)Nic Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-03-2010, 07:19 AM)St.Ambrose Wrote: [ -> ]Was their any ecumenism in the early church or medieval church period?

Ecumenism - Yes

Today's false ecumenism - No, for this is clearly condemned.

What do you mean?

What is the difference between true and false ecumenism?


John Paul II False ecumenist?

There is a HUGE difference in true and false ecumenism.  True ecumenism tries to lead all men into the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, with absolutely NO expense of Truth.  This has been done since the Church existed, and was commanded by Christ.  This is true evangelization.

Today's false ecumenism tries to put all religions on equal ground.  This is heretical and condemned by the Church of all time.  What the post-conciliar Church is doing is mostly, if not all, false ecumenism.  Pope John Paul II was engorged in false ecumenism.  His "Assisi Prayer Meetings" are the very definition of false ecumenism, for not once was it known that he spoke to them about the necessity of joining the only religion that can save a man's soul.  Instead, he let them pray to their false gods, even allowing a statue of the false god Bhudda to be placed on the Holy Altar of Jesus Christ.  This caused a horrible scandal in the hearts of modern Catholics, for if they see thier pope, their leader, doing such a thing, then they think that it is O.K., and therefore that all religions are equal.  This is why in the modern Church we are hardly ever urged to try and convert Protestants, for it is taught by modern Churchmen in every level of the human element of the Church's hierarchy that they are our "separated brethren" and are just fine where they are.


Modern Ecumenism is a Fraud
A Novel and Deadly Force Ravages the Church
Originally Published in
Crying in the Wilderness Newsletter



The purpose of this expose is not simply to throw stones at modern ecumenism, but to warn faithful Catholics to the danger of surrendering their "pearl of great price'; their one true Holy Roman Catholic Faith to the liberal spirit of the age.

Modern Ecumenism is a Fraud


In the 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia, the word "Ecumenism" does not even appear. It goes straight through from Ecuador to Ecumenical Council to Edda. The heading Ecumenical Council contains nothing more than this: "ECUMENICAL COUNCIL: SEE COUNCILS, GENERAL"

In the 1965 Catholic Encyclopedia, however, no less than seven pages are devoted to the "Ecumenical Movement': Ecumenism is, therefore, a twentieth century phenomenon. In the short span of sixty years, ecumenism as we know it today, has come from a state of non-existence, to being the integral fabric of the "New Theology of the Church."

Definition of Ecumenism


The Ecumenical Movement is basically the movement toward reunion of all Churches into a single Church, one in body, but not necessarily holding the same religious tenets... spotlighting things we have in common, hush-hushing those things which divide us. Should you ask, however, ten different theologians of ten denominations for a definition of ecumenism, chances are you would receive ten slightly different replies. This is the greatest weakness of ecumenism. it is a slippery sloppy expression devoid of any solid orthodox definition. It thus avails itself of ambiguity and double talk--as do subversive movements in general. The Second Vatican Council had a great deal to say about ecumenism, without ever giving the definition of the word!

Prior to 1960, the Catholic Church had always kept the Ecumenical Movement at arms length from the mystical Body of Christ, now and then touching it with the proverbial ten-foot pole, but never taking an active part.

Any student of ecclesiastical history will tell you that the Roman Catholic Church's particular charism was to clarify the truth in times of confusion and, to counter what was novel or erroneous by clinging to and defining what she has always believed since the time of the Apostles. Thus when Martin Luther denied so much of what the Roman Church held true, she took care of this problem at the Council of Trent... defining in detail each one of the Seven Sacraments, indulgences, justification, etc. The Church does not invent new doctrines at these councils, but defines and clarifies in a solemn and official manner what she has always believed. The Councils of the past took the Church and the world from a time of confusion, into a period of theological stability. Unfortunately, Vatican II is the first council in the history of the Church that did not help in this regard. As a matter of fact, we must regretfully admit that all evidence clearly shows she only made things far worse.

Origin of Ecumenism


The ecumenical movement as it exists today owes its origin to a conference of Protestant missionaries at Edinburgh in 1910. Its original purpose was among Protestant missionaries of different denominations to promote a spirit of collaboration in order to "evangelize" the pagan world. Doctrinal differences were to be played down... unity of action and what was held in common by all was to be exalted.

It was during this time that Charles Brent, an American Episcopal Bishop of the Philippines conceived the idea of assembling a great conference of delegates from all Christian confessions. A second conference was formed shortly after by Brent called the "Conference on Faith and Order."  In 1919, the Holy See being invited to send delegates, politely declined. Pope Benedict XV explained that although his earnest desire was one fold and one shepherd, it would be impossible for the Catholic Church to join with others in search of unity. As for the Church of Christ, it is already one and could not give the appearance of searching for itself or for its own unity. It is reported that the Holy Father did not disapprove of the movement as something outside the Catholic Church, but by his own words it is obvious he knew it was not only futile, but dangerous and even scandalous to the Catholic Faithful to participate in seeking unity in such a manner.

It was through this movement that the World Council of Churches was born.

Mortalium Animos and Humani Generis


There is no doubt that certain priests and theologians, influenced by a distorted notion of Christian Charity became interested in this "Movement of Unity", and that many were literally straining at the leash to take part. Thus Pope Pius XI was moved to provide the excellent Catholic guidance he did in his 1928 encyclical Mortalium Animos, (ON FOSTERING TRUE RELIGIOUS UNITY) an encyclical which, for obvious reasons, is seldom quoted these days. Pope Pius XII also sounded the alarm to this error in his great 1950 encyclical Humani Generis (TREATING CERTAIN FALSE OPINIONS THAT THREATEN TO RUIN THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH). He warned of those who wished to "reduce to a minimum the meaning of Catholic dogmas..." and "the desire to do away with the barriers that divide good and honest men. "The term he employed was "eirenism" calling it a "serious danger" because "it is concealed beneath the mask of virtue."(See Humani Generis par. 12 to 25). Father Vincent Micelli has called this "the Forgotten Encyclical". It seems more likely that it was not forgotten, but vehemently ignored! Strangely enough, the very acts considered immoral by both Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII were urged upon Catholics following the 1962-65 Council as being suddenly justified by the so-called "Spirit of Vatican II."

Ecumenism Prevailed at the Council


I must be here noted that Modernism, the synthesis of all heresies which had been condemned and effectively brought under control by Pope St. Pius X was nevertheless alive and well underground as St. Pius X expressed it, "within the very bosom of the Church." The Second Vatican Council brought all the world's bishops and their most "prestigious" theologians to gather in Rome, and to the great tragedy of the Church, the liberal and modernist element prevailed.2 The fruits of which are strikingly before our eyes. A spirit of Ecumania became rampant at this time. No longer was the first concern "is it orthodox?", but "is it ecumenical?': A lust for change and innovation was inexplicably brought to a euphoric height! Protestants and schismatics were invited to attend the Council not to participate, but to come as observers. A few bishops noted this made it somewhat awkward to debate issues where their errors were involved. The New Rite of Mass was conceived by this spirit of ecumenism. This is why it so closely resembles a Protestant service. The "Ecumenical Spirit" has been the primary formative principle in the whole range of the new liturgical and sacramental forms established by the new Church. In the immediate wake of Vatican II, the entire Catholic world was suddenly rocked off its axis by profound and unprecedented changes blasting their way through the entire Church with inexhaustible energy and intense fury. The unfortunate Catholic laity, who certainly did not ask for this revolution, and who were totally unaware of what their leaders had in store for them were taken completely by surprise. The Council, therefore, was like a great launch pad supporting the rocket of ecumenism about to blast its way violently through every single parish church, every religious community, and every seminary in the world.

Modern Ecumenism: An Ecclesiastical Swamp!


The difference between a river and a swamp is great! A swamp has no banks, and the waters mish-mash wherever they will. A swamp is useless as a waterway, as a source of life for fish, or for cleansing. Whereas a river has fixed banks which keep the waters flowing in the proper direction. Since it has boundaries, and depth, and width, it can be a great source of life, health, and practical benefit.

Modern ecumenism is a swamp! We have been sling-shot into this Ecumenical Movement without a clear definition of ecumenism itself, and what are to be the safe guidelines for ecumenism... in other words, where does one stop? All ecumenical activity, no matter how scandalous or ludicrous is justified by appealing to Vatican II's Decree on Ecumenism... which, along with the other Council documents, is lacking in definition and is deliberately ambiguous. On this point, Cardinal Ruffini expressed particular concern that the Decree on Ecumenism failed to provide any adequate definition of the word "ecumenism" itself... a dangerous factor since the word is used in a different sense by Protestants and Catholics. But this was no accident! The liberal Dutch theologian Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx, a periti at Vatican II admitted: "We have used ambiguous terms during the Council and we know how we shall interpret them afterwards."

Likely, the reason why no definition of Ecumenism was given by the Second Vatican Council for its use of the term "ecumenism" was that if the actual intent of the Decree of Ecumenism was openly declared, any well informed Catholic of good will would have repudiated it, and the value of the Decree as an instrument of subversion would have been lost. At face value, how could any true Catholic subscribe to the absurd notion that a religious unity according to God's will is possible by playing down any aspect whatsoever of God's revelation concerning Himself, His Church, and our salvation only to magnify what is believed "in common"? It's as if twenty centuries of Catholic Teaching and Tradition should bow down before the great "messiah" of ecumenism and utter the immortal words` "it must increase, and the Church of Christ must decrease."

All Religions on the Same Footing


The great danger of ecumenism is that it places all religions on the same footing. Modern ecumenism would have us believe that all men of whatever religious persuasion are equally "on their way to God." They are merely taking different means to get there... so if you re a Protestant, be a GOOD Protestant, if you're a Jew, be a GOOD Jew, if you're a Moslem, be a GOOD MOSLEM, if you’re a Hindu, be a GOOD Hindu. God is portrayed as being at the summit of a mountain, and there are many roads and paths up that mountain that lead to Him. ANY MAN IS FREE TO CHOOSE THE PATH HE WILL. TO GOD IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE WHICH ROAD A MAN CHOOSES TO COME TO HIM. CERTAINLY NO MAN CAN DECLARE HIMSELF TO HAVE THE "ONLY WAY!"

Now once Catholics get the bug of "Ecumenitis" into their bloodstream, the infection can only bring about spiritual sickness and death. They will start to be careless about their own Catholicism. They will join in worship with persons of false religions and end by abandoning the True Church of Christ. They will come to look upon the Seven Sacraments as merely "optional" means of grace, no better than the ceremonies of other cults... free to use, free to reject with no consequences upon their eternal salvation.

Modern ecumenism is therefore strikingly at odds with the mandate of our Lord Jesus Christ to His Apostles when He entrusted them with His Divine Law, established His Church with Peter as the head, (Matt. 16: 18-19) and gave them the Divine commission to "Go... and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Matt. 18:19). It ignores the warning of Christ when he told us "no-one comes to the Father but through Me."(John 14:6) and furthermore, "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he who does not believe shall be condemned."(Mark 16:16) It is in opposition to the will of Christ: "There shall be one fold and one Shepherd," (John 10:16) He being the Shepherd. Modern ecumenism is opposed to the true Gospel of Jesus Christ... it is ecclesiastical lunacy.

An Ecumenical Moses?


The book of Exodus tells us of Moses coming down the Mountain of God with the tablets of the Law... the Ten Commandments. Now there were twelve tribes of Israel. Suppose one of the tribes, just say the tribe of Juda, after examining the 10 Commandments distinguished themselves saying "We'll accept all the Commandments except Commandments 8 and 10,"and solidified their protestation proclaiming "We cannot and will not recant!" Do you think Moses would have pursued "ecumenical dialogue" with these people, or danced around in a state of ecumenical euphoria exuberant over the fact that they at least agree with him in regard to the other eight? Furthermore, do you think he would have made sure that in the Israelite's liturgies and religious services there be no mention of the 6th and 8th Commandment because he did not wish to offend the tribe of Juda? In doing this, would Moses be serving God's design, or a perverted human design? Is not the answer ferociously obvious?

And is this not what we see to have happened in the wake of Vatican II and the euphoria over ecumenism? Whose ends are being served in this novel approach to false religions, Christ's designs, or a perverted human design? Just as Moses would have had absolutely no right to play down, or worse yet, be ashamed of the revelation of which God had made him the custodian, so too no authority in the Catholic Church has any right whatsoever to be ashamed of the revelation of which God has made them custodian... sweeping even the smallest particle of Catholic Truth under the ecumenical carpet so as not to offend disbelievers. Such activities subvert the mission of Christ causing irreparable scandal not only to the faithful, but to all non-Catholics as well, each of whom we should regard as a Catechumen in spe (a prospective catechumen) Such a thing is an abandonment of the Evangelical Law in principle and a repudiation of Christianity itself. "Not one jot or tittle shall be lost from the Law" our Lord says, (Matt. 5. 18) and "he who does away with one of these least commandments and so teaches men, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven" (Matt. 5 18-19).

Why is it a Fraud?


Modern Ecumenism is a fraud because it is a false principle "concealed beneath the mask of virtue." It can only operate to the destruction of the Catholic Church. Though it deserves a more full and lengthy treatment than presented here, the most striking problems are:

1) IT SUBVERTS THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST.

The mission of the Church is the mission of Christ. Christ came to redeem man from sin and teach him what he must believe and do in order to gain salvation. Christ came also to govern and sanctify... and we must accept the full message of Christ, not a slim or distorted portion of it. This full message of Christ is found in the Catholic Church alone. Ecumenism will have us play down or diminish Catholic Truth for the sake of ecumenical union. It will have us leave people alone in their religious error, and acknowledge that all religions, both true and false, are all parallel ways to God. ECUMENISM, THEREFORE, ACCEPTS THE FALSE AND DANGEROUS PRINCIPLE THAT THE FULL MESSAGE OF CHRIST AND HIS ONE TRUE CATHOLIC CHURCH ARE NOT NECESSARY FOR SALVATION. The Church loses her role as teacher of mankind ("The Roman Church is the Mother and teacher of all the churches." {Dogma of Faith} Vatican I). "Go forth and teach" has been transformed into "Go forth and dialogue."

2) IT PLACES A MERE EXTERNAL/MATERIAL UNION OF RELIGIOUS BODIES AS ITS HIGHEST POSSIBLE GOOD.

Theological truth and the acceptance of it is no longer the primary aspect of religion. On the contrary it becomes a simmering-of-all-religions together in a kind of "Ecumenical Stew" where each one must boil out his own distinctive taste in order to blend with the other ingredients. IN CONTRAST TO THE TRUTH THAT GOD HAS REVEALED TO MANKIND, THEIRS IS AN EXTERNAL UNION WHERE THERE IS NO UNION OF TRUTH AND THUS NO UNION AT ALL. God demands that He be believed and worshiped in truth, that is according to what He is, and what He has told us. Ecumenism ignores all this and places not truth, but the blueprint of a kind of "United Nations of Religions" as its highest possible end. This is false religion. (It should be noted that no other religious body has made such sweeping changes for the sake of Ecumenism than has the post-Vatican II Church. Protestants, Jews, Moslems, etc. have not changed anything... only Catholicism.)

3) THE FIRST CASUALTY IN THE SEARCH FOR UNITYIS CATHOLIC UNITY

The authorities in our Holy Church have sacrificed their own unity on the altar of ecumenism causing a severe fragmentation of the Catholic Church in the name oi unity, to the point where we find, if we may use "big-media" terminology, everything from the "extreme right" to the "extreme left" within our parishes, within our seminaries, within our chanceries... with a heavy emphasis on the left, and a curious intolerance of the right. If "following one's own conscience" and "sincerity" be the only barometer of religion, then it necessarily follows that this will immediately strike and disintegrate the unity of the Church. ECUMENISM IS UNITY AT THE EXPENSE OF CATHOLICISM!

May Catholics Question Vatican II's Ecumenism?


Vatican ll was not a doctrinal Council... it did not make any solemn definitions binding our conscience on Faith and Morals. It was a pastoral Council... a Council for guiding souls. We may therefore, be permitted to ask "To where have we been guided?" At the close of the Council, the Bishops asked Cardinal Felici for that which theologians call the "theological note" of the Council. He replied "We have to distinguish according to the schemas and the chapters those which have already been the subject of dogmatic definitions; as for the declarations which have a novel character, we have to make reservations." Now ecumenism is clearly a novelty. The practice of modern ecumenism is clearly in contradiction to the teaching and actions of previous Popes, and the effect of ecumenism is a disastrous and catastrophic path bulldozed through the entire Church, the uprooting of the very foundations of the Faith, and the shattering of every aspect of Catholic Truth down to the last molecule. Ecumenism is an ecclesiastical atom bomb! It is at the very heart of the present crisis of Faith. Catholics are completely within their rights, therefore, to "make reservations" and even resist this questionable "novelty" of ecumenism.

This does not mean, however, that Catholics and non-Catholics cannot work together in the civil order for the common good, as Bishop Duane Hunt put it in 1949, "even if we cannot be united in faith, we can be united in good works." All men of good will can and should rally their forces and present a united front against the onslaught of militant atheism in the East, and soft-sophisticated atheism in the West. It is necessary to unite and fight these great evils in all their forms, but this does not mean Catholics are to be coerced into sacrificing one iota of Catholic Truth in these endeavors, particularly within the very household of the Faith.

The Only True Unity: The Catholic Church


No matter what the odds, we must diligently and unceasingly work toward all men coming within the fold of the one true Church. As far as Christ is concerned, nothing else will do. Even if this idea seems "next to impossible" in our day - another illusion - we must not abandon this ideal, for the eternal salvation of the non-Catholic depends on it. It is only cowardice, lack of conviction, and a distorted notion of Christian Charity that looks to ecumenism for the answer. Let us fervently pray that perhaps, through the grace of God, we may return to the Catholic principle of Pope Pius XI who in his no-nonsense 1928 Encyclical Mortalium Animos,(ON FOSTERING TRUE RELIGIOUS UNITY) left no room for doubt:

"lt seems opportune to expound and refute a certain false opinion on which that complex movement by which non-Catholics seek to bring union of Christian Churches depends. They add that the Church, in itself, or of its nature, is divided into sections, that is to say, that it is made up of several churches or distinct communities, which still remains separate, and although having certain articles of doctrine in common, nevertheless, disagree concerning the remainder; that these all enjoy the same rights; and thus, in their contention, the Church was one and undivided from, at the most, the Apostolic age until the First Ecumenical Council. Controversies, therefore, they say, and longstanding differences of opinion, which have kept asunder till the present day members of the Christian family, must be entirely put aside, and for the remaining doctrines a common form of faith drawn up and proposed for belief, in the profession of which all may not only know but feel that they are brothers... They go on to say that the Roman Catholic Church also has erred, and has corrupted the original religion by adding and proposing for belief certain doctrines , which are not only alien to the Gospel, but repugnant to it... meanwhile, they affirm that they would willingly treat with the Church of Rome, but on equal terms, that is, as equals with an equal... This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it lawful for Catholics to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so, they will give countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ... Who, then, can conceive a Christian Federation, the members of which retain each his own opinion and private judgement, in matters which concern the very object of Faith, even though they may be repugnant to the opinion of the rest? ...Unity can arise only from one teaching authority, one law of belief, and one faith of Christians... the union of Christians can only be furthered by promoting the return to the true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it."

This traditional teaching on Christian unity (ecumenism) was set forth, again, in the Instructio de Motione Oecumenica(Instruction of the Ecumenical Movement, A.A.S., 31 January 1950) published by the Holy Office on 20 December 1949, which emphasizes the teaching of Pius XI in his encyclical Mortalium Animos of 1928. (Information added to original)

This is an interesting article.  One could give many example of modern Churchmen, including popes (even our current pope), doing things that are complete contradictions of what the Church and saints of the past condemned.


Ecumenism and Catholic Teaching

"What part hath the faithful with the unbeliever? (2 Cor. 6:15)

"Is it permitted for Catholics to be present at, or to take part in, conventions, gatherings, meetings, or societies of non-Catholics which aim to associate together under a single agreement everyone who, in any way, lays claim to the name Christian? In the negative!... It is clear, therefore, why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics, There is only one wav in which the unity of Christians may be fostered, and that is by furthering the return to the one true Church of Christ those who are separated from her. " (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos). Comment: Anyone who believes it is all right to go to ecumenical services during Thanksgiving and Lent, and any other time, needs to read that encyclical For some 1920 years (33AD to 1958 AD), the Church has been vigilant on warning her children to stay away from such gatherings.

The 1917 Code of Canon Law states: that: " It is not permitted at all for the faithful to assist in any active manner at or to have any part in the worship of non-Catholics." [Canon 1258]

A true believer is a Catholic who believes what the Church teaches. In the early Church, were the souls who followed Christ called Christians or Protestants? Christians: "At Antioch the disciples were fist named Christians" (Acts 11:26). Were there any Protestants in Christ's time concerning His doctrines? Yes. When our Lord first taught that we must eat His flesh and drink his blood for the life of our souls. the first Protestants - the Jews - said, "how can this man give us His flesh to eat?" (.St. John 6:53). And Jesus reaffirmed most solemnly, "Amen,  Amen, say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the ,Son. of Man and drink His blood, You shall not have life in you (vs. 54). So. were these first Protestants - who rejected the doctrine of the true presence - united to Christ or did they walk no more with Him? Scripture says, "After this many of His disciples went back and walked no more with Him" (vs. 67). You see? A rejection of Christ's doctrine is a rejection of Christ. These disciples - who walked no more with Him - apparently believed in Him at one time, but when they rejected His teaching, they rejected Him; does anyone truly think they were saved? We must do more than believe in Him, we must also follow what He taught: "And why call ye Me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?"

Nowadays you have Catholic clergy going to Protestant churches giving talks. Origin expressly states "If you eat the words of God in the Church, and also eat them in the ,synagogue of the Jews, you transgress the commandment which says: In one house shall it be eaten "{Ex. 12:46}

"How does a Catholic sin against faith? A Catholic sins against Faith by Apostasy, heresy, indifferentism and by taking part in non-Catholic worship." (Catechism of the Council of Trent, Catechism of Pope St. Pius X and The Baltimore Catechism).

"For if they have doctrines opposed to ours, it is not fitting to be mixed up with them for this cause alone... what do you say? 'There faith is the same; these men are orthodox?' why, then, are they not with us?"  - St. John Chrysostom

"St. Anthony the Abbot would not speak to a heretic, except to exhort him to the true faith; and he drove all heretics from his mountain, calling them venomous serpents." - St. Athanasius on the life of St. Anthony the Hermit,

"It is therefore unlawful, and a profanation, and an act the punishment of which is death, to love to associate with unholy heretics, and to unite oneself to their communion" – St.. Cyril of Alexandri.

"You help the ungodly, and you are joined in friendship with those who hate the Lord; and therefore you did indeed deserve the wrath of the Lord -  II Paralipomenon 19:2.

“Saint Peter and Paul have loathed heretics, and in their Epistles have warned us to avoid them” – St. Cyprian

St. Anthasius went as far as refusing the name of Christian to those who left the Church as he openly affirms "Those who go off to heretics, and all who leave the Church for heresy, abandon the name of Christ. Those who call these men "Christians" are in griev-ous error, since they neither understand Scripture at all nor the faith which it contains." - Discourse Against the Arians," Bk. I, ch.1, no. 1, PG 26:11

Do we see the same attitude today? Or do we see a Church approved prophecy being fulfilled: "Rome will lose the faith.. , " (Our Lady of La Sallette, Apparition approved by St. Pius X). .

"St. John, the disciple of the Lord, (the Apostle of love), going to bathe at Ephesus, and .finding Cerinthus inside, rushed out ()f the bathhouse without bathing, shouting: 'Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, for Cerinthas, the enemy of truth, is inside!' And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion asking: 'Do you know me?' '1 do know you', replied Polycarp, 'I know you to be the .first born of Satan!' Such was the horror which the Apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal , communication with any corrupters of the truth"   - St.  Irenaeus of Lyon, Against the Heresies, book III.

In respect to their guilt whereby they are opposed to God, all sinners are to be hated, even one's father or mother or kindred, according to St. Luke 14:26. For it is our duty to hate in the sinner his being a sinner" - St. Thomas Aquinas, (STL 11-11, Q. 25 Art 6.).

"If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or to the meeting-houses of the heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion If any Bishops or Priest or Deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended from Communion" - III Council of Constantinople.

Pius XI in dealing with this issue that was so vehement in his own day had only the following to say "Certainly such movements as these cannot gain the approval of Catholics. They are founded upon the false opinions of those who say that, since all religions equally unfold and signify- though not in the same way - the native, inborn feeling in us all through which we are borne toward God and humbly recognize His rule, therefore, all religions are more or less good and praiseworthy. The followers of this theory are not only deceived and mistaken, but since they repudiate the true religion by attacking it in its very essence, they move step by step toward naturalism and atheism. Hence it clearly follows that anyone who gives assent to such theories and undertakings utterly abandons divinely revealed religion. " (Mortalium Animos)

The Church can never lawfully grant to Catholics permission to participate formally in non-Catholic worship. In dealing those who claim they have been given ecclesiastical permission to participate in the ceremonial rites of non Catholics Fr. Michael Muller in his well known work, "God the Teacher of Man Kind" aptly answers the question by stating "Neither any priest nor bishop, nay, not even the Pope, can give you permission to violate any of the commandments." (God the teacher of Mankind, New York, 1881, Pg. 331)

"Cut off from the Church: One must neither pray nor sing psalms with those who are cut off from the communion of the Church, whether clergy or layman: let him be excommunicated" - Council of Carthage.

"No one shall pray in common with heretics and schismatics" - Council of Laodicea.

"I will not pray with you, nor shall you pray with me; neither will I  say 'Amen' to your prayers, nor shall you to mine"  - St. Margaret Clitherow

"These men are Protestants; they are heretics. Have nothing to do with them.! -  St. Anthony Alary Claret, The Modern Apostles.

"It is not lawful to go to the Protestant Church" – St.  John Rigby

"We decree that those who give credence to the teachings of heretics, as well as those who receive, defend, or patronize them, are excommunicated... If anyone refuses to avoid such accomplices after they have been ostracized by the Church, let them also be excommunicated" - IV Lateran Council

This is the voice of the Church. Let him who fears for his salvation hear the voice of the Church or be as the heathen, "If he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican" – Matt 18:17

Our Lord Said to St. Paul ' “I send you to the Gentiles to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins by faith in Me” (Acts 26:18)

"Make no mistake, my brethren, they shall suffer everlasting punishment who endeavor to corrupt the Church of Christ. Whosoever sets at nought His doctrine shall go into hell, and so shall everyone who listens to him" – St. Ignatisus of Antioch.

"Do not treat with a man without religion. Give no heed to them in any matter of council" - Ecclus. 37: 12

A Protestant once approached St. John Vianney saying, 'though we are not together on earth, we shall be together in heaven'. The saint looked into the man's eyes and said gently: "As the tree leans, so the tree falls. If we do not live together on earth, we shall not live together in heaven. Death makes no change in that". The Protestant upon hearing these gentle words of the saint considered them, renounced his error, and became a Catholic.

A heretic is led by his own judgment rather than the teaching of the Church, and is lost" "A man that is a heretic... is subverted and sins, being condemned by his own judgment" (Titus 3: 10). Every man must be taught. Christ told His Apostles, the ministers of His Church: "Go and teach all nations (Matt 28: 1 9). He that believeth not, shall be condemned" (St. Matt 16: 16).

"Since these wretched souls will have to be separated from God and Heaven for all eternity because their place will be in hell, already here on earth they have to be separated from the company of Christ our Lord and His servants and hand-maids. Predestinated souls, you who are of God, cut yourselves adrift from those who are damning themselves.!"  - St. Louis De Monfort

Prayer of Pope Pius X: "Give thanks to God that He has made you a child of His Church which is always animated and governed by His Divine Spirit who was sent into the world on the day of Pentecost. Hear and follow the sovereign Pontiff, who teaches infallibly through the Holy Ghost and the Church, which is the pillar and ground of truth (1 Tim 3: J 5). Hold fast to her doctrines, maintain her cause, defend her rights. Live always as becomes a child of God and a member of the true Church of God, so that after this life, you may receive Heaven as your inheritance, Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost.! Amen"

Your a z german ah st ambrose? Well the Teutonic knights are the best example of true ecuminism using a z german outfit to demonstarte thid to u. The Teutonic knights are responsible for the conversion of much of baltics prussia and much of poland.
When they would find a sacred tree of some vile pagan tribe they would fight their way into the sacred groove chop t down and buld a church!
While the pan-Christian movements's aims have always been rejected and still are (ie those movements that seek to create "unity" based on the lowest common denominator, instead of the totality of truth), seeking the reunuion of the Baptized, yet separated, has always been present. Ecumenism specifically refers to efforts towards corporate reunion of baptized yet separated communities, but can also include those common efforts to defend the natural law in society, etc. The author of what Nic posted missed it, but there is an article on ecumenism in the old Catholic Encyclopedia--it just doesn't use the term. It gives a good out line of the history of these efforts through the centuries up until 1908 (including times when prayer in common for this purpose has been permitted):

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15132a.htm

As far as pre-Vatican II instructions, from what I have seen, most immediately there is this instruction from the Holy Office under Pius XII in 1949 (which also addresses prayer in common):
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFECUM.HTM

Preceding that there is the famous-among-trads encyclical of Pius XI condemning the pan-Christian movement:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x...os_en.html

You can also find references elsewhere to similar themes. For example, Pope Leo XIII gave this instruction:

"But if, among the different ways of preaching the word of God that one sometimes seems to be preferable, which directed to non-Catholics, not in churches, but in some suitable place, in such wise that controversy is not sought, but friendly conference, such a method is certainly without fault. But let those who undertake such ministry be set apart by the authority of the bishops and let them be men whose science and virtue has been previously ascertained. For we think that there are many in your country who are separated from Catholic truth more by ignorance than by ill-will, who might perchance more easily be drawn to the one fold of Christ if this truth be set forth to them in a friendly and familiar way."
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13teste.htm



(05-03-2010, 07:48 AM)St.Ambrose Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-03-2010, 07:45 AM)Nic Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-03-2010, 07:19 AM)St.Ambrose Wrote: [ -> ]Was their any ecumenism in the early church or medieval church period?

Ecumenism - Yes

Today's false ecumenism - No, for this is clearly condemned.

What do you mean?

What is the difference between true and false ecumenism?


John Paul II False ecumenist?

True ecumenism is that which involves Catholic theologians accurately explaining the faith to non-Catholic leaders, with the express aim of converting them and bringing them back into the one fold of Jesus Christ, from which they are currently separated. You might want to check out Pope Pius XI's encyclical Moraltium Animos (1928) and the Instruction of the Holy Office from 1950, both of which said that only true unity can come about by the dissenters (non-Catholics) returning to Holy Mother Church.

False ecumenism involves much dialogue but no clear aim of converting non-Catholics. Or, the two sides - Catholic and non-Catholic - may settle for something much less than full doctrinal and governmental agreement, which was condemned by Pius XI (in Mortalium Animos, see especially par. 7-10).

I'm sure some other posters here know a great deal more about the subject. One last thing that I can offer is reminding you that the Church tried (unsuccessfully) to bring the Eastern Orthodox back into the fold during the ecumenical councils of Lyons II (1274) and Florence (1438-39).

Ha ha, see what I mean?  :laughing: Check out both Nic and SaintSebastian's posts above mine.


I've found the Instruction on the Ecumenical Movement, published by the Holy Office on 20 December 1949, online:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFECUM.HTM
(05-03-2010, 07:45 AM)Nic Wrote: [ -> ]Today's false ecumenism - No, for this is clearly condemned.

When I was young and fresh communist ruled the world around me. The were two type of them the stupid honest and the smart dishonest ones (as some people said the smart honest ones did not joined the Party, and the stupid dishonest ones were not admitted to there).

The two admitted category were quite different, and behind the surface they fought each other hard, but something was common between them: they always recited slogans, never went into details, never argued. The stupid ones could not comprehend the fullness of the things, and if they get smarter they left the party, the dishonest one did not wanted their audience to think, because they understand that the details, the arguments are againt them. If someone asked the about the details or arguments their stereotype answer was: we already repeated that thousand times.

So what is false in the ecumenism what the hierarchical magisterial Church supports?
(05-03-2010, 09:25 AM)glgas Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-03-2010, 07:45 AM)Nic Wrote: [ -> ]Today's false ecumenism - No, for this is clearly condemned.

When I was young and fresh communist ruled the world around me. The were two type of them the stupid honest and the smart dishonest ones (as some people said the smart honest ones did not joined the Party, and the stupid dishonest ones were not admitted to there).

The two admitted category were quite different, and behind the surface they fought each other hard, but something was common between them: they always recited slogans, never went into details, never argued. The stupid ones could not comprehend the fullness of the things, and if they get smarter they left the party, the dishonest one did not wanted their audience to think, because they understand that the details, the arguments are againt them. If someone asked the about the details or arguments their stereotype answer was: we already repeated that thousand times.

So what is false in the ecumenism what the hierarchical magisterial Church supports?

Today's false ecumenism places all religions on equal ground.  There is no speaking of the superiority of the Catholic Church, and the fact that only within her can a man be saved.  False ecumenism is at the expense of Truth, and it tries to to bring Catholicism down to the level of false religions instead of bringing false religions to the level of Catholicism.  This is a grave error.  Also, when have you seen a modern upper-hierarch in the post-conciliar Church publicly state to the Jews, Moslems or Protestants that they must become Catholic in order to gain salvation?  All you see is them joining in their false worship and never publicly asking them to leave their false religions and come to the only religion that saves, which creates scandal in the hearts of the people for they equate this with something that is acceptable in the Church, which the pre-conciliar Church clearly proves otherwise.  This is just another example of neo-Caths seeing Catholicism as being created in the mid 1960's, for they ignore the previous 1,930 years of Church teaching in favor of the new religoin that was formed within the official confines of the Church post Vatican II.

Also, it is quite obvious that something DRASTICALLY changed after Vatican II.  When did you see a Pope Leo XIII or a Pope St. Pius X worshipping with Protestants and Jews, and especially not publicly stating that outside the Church there is no salvation - a DOGMA of the Faith that is forgotten in the post-Conciliar Church.
Pages: 1 2