Skip to main content

Ecumenism: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (Original SSPX.ca Article from 2014)

 +
JMJ

 Can't we all just get along?  Well that depends on where the gaps are between people's principles, value and perspective.

If one tries to get along by glossing over the gaps, then it is like walking in the Antarctic Ice Fields without safety equipment. 

Eventually, you will fall through the thin layer of ice and plummet to your demise.


P^3

 

Courtesy of SSPX.ca


Ecumenism: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

May 24, 2014
Source: District of Canada

Modernists have a tendency of taking a perfectly Catholic word and applying a new non-Catholic meaning to it.  The word 'Ecumenism' has suffered the same fate and as a result there are now three types of Ecumenism: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.

The Good Ecumenism

An example of the Good Ecumenism can be found in the encyclical of Pius XI - Mortalium Animos (1928) in articles 10: 

So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the 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.

Similar pleas have been made by Leo XIII, Pius XII and other pontiffs up to the Second Vatican Council.

In the present age of the Church, this is commonly called the "Ecumenism of return".  This is the Good.
 

The Bad Ecumenism

In the late 19th and early 20th century, a movement with the desire to achieve 'Christian Unity' was founded.  While the members of this movement were well intentioned, the organization was founded upon flawed principles.   It is these flawed principles that Pius XI condemned in Mortalium Animos, particularly since equally well-meaning Catholics were beginning to participate in the movement.  These principles were so flawed that Pius XI called them "a most grave error, by which the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed".   In short, the movement made a distinction between fundamental truths and optional truths.

As this form of Ecumenism was outside the Church of Christ, it is The Bad.
 

The Ugly Ecumenism

The third form of Ecumenism is, for all purposes, identical to 'The Bad'.  The key difference is that, like a virus, it has infected the Mystical Body of Christ,  the "true Church of Jesus Christ,  which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church" (Mystici Corporis - Pius XII).

Cardinals Kasper and Koch are normally the first people mentioned when looking for symptoms of this viral infection. However, recently a group of SSPX faithful from Winnipeg were able to hear for themselves the first lecture given by Professor Catherine E. Clifford.  In this lecture they were provided an example of how Ecumenism currently manifests itself within the Bride of Christ.

In the first lecture it was made clear that Ecumenism within the Church had shifted from "Ecumenism of return" to "Ecumenism of recognition". In the second lecture on 'Where is the Church of Christ', Prof. Clifford sounded the alarm that there has occurred a "subtle slippage ... [back] to an ecumenism of return, to one that is more ecclesial and Roman centric than the Christo centric ecumenism of recognition fostered by the Second Vatican Council."

Herein lies the problem, how can one have Christo centric ecumenism without reference to the One, Holy, Catholic and Roman Catholic Church that Christ founded?  According to Catholic Dogma, one cannot. 

This form of Ecumenism has marred the clear face of the Church of Christ. This Ecumenism is simply: The Ugly.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

SSPX and the Resistance - A Comparison Of Ecclesiology

Shining the light of Church Teaching on the doctrinal positions of the SSPX and the Resistance. Principles are guides used to aid in decision making.  It stands to reason that bad principles will lead to bad decisions. The recent interactions between Rome and the SSPX has challenged a number of closely held cultural assumptions of people in both sides of the disagreement. This has resulted in cultural skirmishes in both Rome and the SSPX. Since it is the smaller of the two, the skirmishes have been more evident within the SSPX.  The cultural fault-line that Bishop Fellay crossed appears to be linked to two points of Catholic Doctrine: Ecclesiology and Obedience.  The cultural difference of view points is strong enough that it has resulted in the expulsion of a number of members.  It should also be noted that some other priests expelled since the beginning of the latest interactions (starting in 2000) held the same view points and have joined with the l...

Regarding Post: Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer no longer ... now Bishop Joseph Pfeiffer (Can't see this being a problem...)

 + JMJ   I've been watching the popularity of the post about Fr. Pfeiffer's attempted episcopal consecration and its continued top listing on the 'popular posts' list at the bottom of posts.  After some thought, I decided that I don't want to be responsible for anyone joining Fr. Pfeiffer's 'group', however unlikely that would be at this time. So I have reverted the article to the draft state. If anyone wants it reinstated, I would ask that they comment on this post with a rationale for reinstatement. P^3

Schism

There is some question as to whether the Pope can be in actual schism as per the Cardinal Torquemada: Citing the doctrine of Pope Innocent III, Torquemada further teaches:  "Thus it is that Pope Innocent III states [De Consuetudine] that, it is necessary to obey the Pope in all things as long as he, himself, does not go against the universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the Church, 'he need not be followed' . . . " [Cited from A Theological Vindication of Roman Catholic Traditionalism, Father Paul Kramer, B.Ph., S.T.D., M. Div. (2nd edition, St. Francis Press, India) p. 29. The full quotation from Cardinal Torquemada reads, "By disobedience, the Pope can separate himself from Christ despite the fact that he is head of the Church, for above all, the unity of the Church is dependent on its relationship with Christ. The Pope can separate himself from Christ either by disobeying the law of Christ, or by commanding som...

The Catholic Church and the Rule of Law- Part II: Dr. John Lamont

+ JMJ This is the second article from Dr. Lamont from his lecture given in May 2014. P^3 Source Part A: Society of St. Hugh of Cluny Source Part B: Society of St. Hugh of Cluny 8 May2014 The Catholic Church and the Rule of Law- Part II By John Lamont To understand how the Jesuit conception of obedience departed from earlier conceptions, it is helpful to compare it with the teaching of St. Thomas on obedience. The fundamental difference between the two is that St. Thomas considers the proper object of obedience to be the precept of the superior (2a2ae q. 104 a. 2 co., ad 3). Obedience that seeks to forestall the expressed will of the superior does not bear on what the superior wants or thinks in general, but only on what the superior intends to command. St. Ignatius’s lowest degree of obedience, which he does not consider to be virtuous, is thus what St. Thomas considers to be the only form of obedience. St. Thomas holds that St. Ignatius’s alleged higher forms of o...

The Episcopal Consecrations of 1988, 1991 and 2015 - Some Perspectives

+ JMJ In defense of the recent consecration of Fr. Faure by Bishop Williamson, some have argued that the 1991 consecration of Bishop Rangel (RIP) by the Bishops of the SSPX present an equivalent standard of action and principles.  From this they conclude that the SSPX's condemnation of Bishop Williamson's action is flawed as the principles of the 1991 consecration and that of 2015 are equivalent.