Modern ecumenism
Seanb20956
Modern Ecumenism is a Fraud
A Noven and Deadly Force Ravages the Church
Originally published in
CRYING IN THE WILDERNESS NEWSLETTER
Preliminary Remarks
The purpose of this exposé 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 Phillippines 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." ln 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 launchpad 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?
Seanb20956
I've read that hand book Bonnie...