Ecumenism… a waste of time?

Part of the Catholic Truth series, Thinking Through Catholic Truth The Big Questions…Answered.

24 responses

  1. Excellent strategy to use the words of Vatican II to expose the “spirit” of Vatican II! Keep ’em coming!

  2. I agree with both previous comments. It really is clever to use the words of Vatican II to expose the fact that Vatican II did launch ecumenism as a means of getting people back into the Church. Mind you, the way those documents were written, there’ll be a few sentences somewhere which contradict the ones quoted in the video, but that doesn’t matter – they’re still in the document and they speak for themselves.

  3. ARCIC is now defunct.

    The Ordinariate is a structure to allow groups of Anglicans to join the Catholic Church while retaining many of their traditions.

    The Divine Worship Missal, used by the Ordinariate, contains many Anglican texts such as those from the Book of Common Prayer. If you google the Divine Worship Missal you will see this first hand and what a wonderful Missal it is. It contains the prayers at the Foot of the Altar, Last Gospel etc albeit in English.

    At a recent conference with Ordinariate clergy, the speaker, a prominent Diocesan priest, said that Rome is focusing much more now on unity with the Orthodox than Anglicans.

    With female clergy, same sex blessings and the liberal CofE agenda, there is too much seperating us from Anglicanism.

    • CDL

      This would not have been permitted before Vatican II as it smacks of Anglicans who really want to remain Anglicans, but who nevertheless could not continue within the Anglican communion given its moral decline. Before the Council it was incumbent upon all Protestants who wished to return to the Church that they abjure their former errors and embrace the Catholic religion whole and entire, including the Catholic liturgy. Hanging on to throwbacks from Protestantism, particularly the Book of Common Prayer, just opens up another disunifying front within the Church, exactly the kind of confusion the Modernists love to create.

      • The Ordinariate is glorious as it allows Anglicans to bring some of their past with them, while gaining full communion with Peter.

        I don’t think we should discredit the sacrifices that people, especially clergy, have made.

        Surely the Traditional Mass, FSSP, attending SSPX Masses etc could equally be seen as disunifying the Church?

        • There’s something distinctly uncomfortable about a group returning to Rome while wishing to cling fondly to parts of its former erroneous religion. I can’t help wondering if these people of the Ordinariate would have crossed the Tiber had Anglicanism maintained the Christian opposition to active homosexuality. Some very great names returned to the Catholic Church from Anglicanism in the 1950s but none of these asked for special treatment, nor indeed would the have been granted any.

          All Catholics, whether cradle or convert, should profess the same faith and celebrate the same liturgy; there should be no divisions, no little pockets of different identity, no Anglican high, middle and low church. This is post-Vatican II division that does harm to at least one of the four marks of the Church, which is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.

          At any rate, it’s probably in the Ordinariate’s favour right now to have the Sarum rite of Mass rather than the New vernacular Mass of 1962. At least in this regard they are a little closer to the Traditonal Catholic religion. I don’t fault the Anglican converts, I fault the liberals at the top of the Catholic Church.

          • The Catholic Church should have one Liturgy?

            Does that mean you’d prefer the Syro Malabar liturgy and Eastern Rites to be forbidden?
            Erroneous religion? Anglo Catholics (which is whom the Ordinariate appeals to) have always sort union with Rome. It was the Bishops in the 1990s who stopped plans for such a structure when Anglicans allowed women priests. This is why, this time, the Ordinariate plans werent released to English Bishops until the last minute.All converts believe in one faith, agreeing to the Catechism.

            • CDL

              By one liturgy I was of course referring to the Latin rite for the West.

              Anglicanism is an “erroneous religion”, hence the the Protestant Common Book of Prayer, for example.

              I do not doubt that many Anglicans of good will have sought to be reunited with Rome, but such a union, if it is to be genuine, must involve a complete abjuration of Anglican beliefs and practices if it is to be true. Married vicars in Anglicanism should not be priests in the Catholic Church, the Common Book of Prayer should be cast aside, etc. For those who have genuinely seen the falsehooh of Anglicanism such requirements should not present problems. If they do then something is not right about the conversion.

  4. Lily

    You hit on an important point concerning the ambiguity written into the documents of Vatican II. The document on ecumenism was written with juxtaposing statements, one traditional the other novel. Of course the traditional statements take precedence over anything novel and dangerous, but one has to know the teaching of the Church before one can distinguish between the two.

    Ecumenism is long condemned by the Church as a heresy “destructive of the very foundations of the Catholic religion”, hence it has no validity in the Church. Modernists slipped it in as something entirely new and refreshing knowing full well that it is an old error that undermines the infallible dogma ‘extra ecclesiam nulla salus’ and thereby makes a lie of the truth.

    The same kind of subversion of truth happened with Communion in the hand. Pope Paul VI condemned this illicitly introduced practice, insisting that kneeling to receive on the tongue remain the Church’s practice. The problem arose from his leaving the door a little ajar for the enemies wothin the Church by making an Indult possible for places where the abuse was already prevalent. Before we knew where we where the Indult became the norm and the norm was suppressed. This is the wicked duplicity of Modernist prelates and priests at its worst.

    Well done to Peter for a great presentation highliting the duplicity of the so-called “Vatican II experts”, who, as we now know, were more experts in subterfuge than sound doctrine. Every area of rot in the Church can be traced back to that Council and its poisonous spirit.

    • Athanasius,

      It seems to me that the entire Vatican II project, from beginning to end, is based on deception. Just as Our Lord’s arrest, trial and execution were based on deception.

      In 33 A.D., it was “one man must die in order to preserve the Jewish nation” (defined as the privileged status of the Pharisees!). In 1962, as we learned later, it was “the Church must be updated in order to preserve the faith!”

      • RCA Victor

        There is absolutely no question that a core group took control of the Council very early on and set about the undermining of the faith by deception, otherwise known as ambiguity (in the documents). Fr. Ralph Wiltgen exposed this plot admirably in his book ‘The Rhine flows into the Tiber’.

  5. Yes Peter,, as Athanasius has said, “well done for a great presentation” – thanks, too, to the others who have expressed appreciation.

    RCA Victor,

    I think you’ve hit the nail on the head when you say that the entire VII project is based on deception. Totally. “A new springtime for the Church” – yeah, right!

    • One of the well not so New Terms in Protestantism ( if that’s a Word ) is To be Born Again. Of Course Christ said this to Niccodemus before he was Crucified. Of course we know basically it was for him to open his Mind and read back in Scripture about Christ in the Old Testament. The reason I bring this up is i had a Cousin ( now deceased ) who said to me he had Been Born Again. Now I don’t know if it was The Brethren or Evangelicals or one of the 1000s of different Sects. But what I said to him was if your coming back to God you have already been Baptised a Catholic ( he told me he went through the Pool Ritual and was Really Baptised ) in the True Faith why go be a Protestant. Of course he said he was Baptised with the Holy Spirit again I told him that already had been done when he was a Child. So he carried on his Protestant way .He lived down in England and whether or not he ever came back to Catholicism I don’t know. Am as the same view as Eucmenichism the way I see it it’s a one way Street. I remember a discussion long ago with a Protestant Minister who said he had a degree in Theology I then said to him if you know the Truth why are you still a Protestant Minister. He never answered me .

  6. I’m at a loss to understand why ecumeniacs don’t read, and understand, Our Lord’s words about His one true Church and other quotes. How DO they get around that to the point of saying that all christian denominations are the same, all going to the same place albeit by different routes etc?

    • Crofterlady,

      Here’s my very tentative application of psychology in answer to your question: for the internal enemies of the Church, who never had any faith to begin with, ecumenism is a process to denature the Catholic Church, her clergy and her faithful of her identity, so that she may become ripe to fit into the New World Religion. In other words, it is the Masonic “philosophy,” that all religions are legitimate roads to God, adapted to the Church.

      For the useful idiots, however, who had faith but then sold it for 30 pieces of human respect, ecumenism is a means of having good relationships with other religions, and being seen as an enlightened, flexible, compassionate, understanding sort of guy. Men whom Our Lord might describe as reeds shaken in the wind.

      And I include every single Conciliar Pope among the useful idiots, including John XXIII, who in 1960 established the “Secretariat for Christian Unity,” headed by Cardinal Bea, a liberal. Hmmm…if Christian unity, as taught by several Popes, simply means to return to the Catholic Church, then why did we need a “Secretariat”?

      If the faithful men in the hierarchy were awake at that moment, they would have seen this as a major red flag. But I’ve never come across one single reaction to the establishment of that Secretariat that was negative. If any of you bloggers have seen such a reaction, from the early 1960s that is, please post it!

      I would also highlight the importance of that year, 1960, in which not only did John XXIII refuse to obey Our Lady’s requests, but he actually embarked on a road diametrically opposed to her plan.

  7. Years ago the great Malcolm Muggeridge said that for Catholics to join with the Church of England would be like uniting with a corpse. In view of the CofE’s shenanigans over the last couple of weeks – a disgraceful, lewd exhibition in one cathedral (Portsmouth) and genuflecting before the LGBTQ flag flying over another (Ely), how can anyone take this bunch seriously?

    • Oliver

      I completely agree. It is now very apparent that when the Anglicans separated from Rome they cut themselves off from the true vine. Leo XIII made this clear centuries later when he declared Anglican orders null and void. Now the withered state of that severed limb is clear to see for anyone with even a modicum of Christian belief. Mind you, had it not been for the revolution of Vatican II Anglicanism would have died out in the 1960s.

      • Athanasius,

        had it not been for the revolution of Vatican II Anglicanism would have died out in the 1960s

        That is an interesting comment – do you think ecumenism gave (or appeared give to) Anglicanism some undeserved gravitas / relevance which has allowed it to stagger on for a few more decades?

        Obviously the Anglicans were doomed from the very second they cut themselves off from the Catholic Church. But I had though they had “hung in there” reasonably well until the 20th century.

        Accepting contraception in 1930 was a nail in their coffin, but I thought they had dodged further nails until ~1992 when they finally accepted “women priests”.

        I had no idea they were struggling so badly as early as the 1960s. Was it a combination of social irrelevance and losing converts to “us”?

        I suppose many Anglicans would have thought “why bother converting?” when they saw what became of most of Catholicism after VII.

        • Gabriel Syme

          It was Michael Davies, I believe, who first made the statement that Protestantism in general, but Anglicanism in particular, would have died a death had it not been for the new life given it by a Protestant-inspired conciliar revolution.

          Davies observed that before Vatican II Protestantism was in real trouble while Catholicism was thriving. Anglicanism was the worst affected in that a sizeable number of its more intellectual adherents were crossing the Tiber back to Rome taking others with them. In fact, Protestantism in all of its various manifestations was undergoing the very same rapid decline that the Catholic Church has undergone since the Council, a very strange irony indeed. So yes, the conciliar revolution saved Protestantism by lending it a respect it did not deserve and which the Church had always forbidden as “fatal to the Catholic religion”. We now see how wise the Church was in that matter!

%d bloggers like this: