JULY 1972

ÉDITION MENSUELLE EN LANGUE ANGLAISE DE LA CONTRE-RÉFORME CATHOLIQUE AU XX^e SIÈCLE
Editor : R. P. Georges de Nantes

Cardinal Seper
Writes A Letter

The doctrinal anarchy in the Church has been underlined in a private letter by the Prefect of the Congregation for Doctrine in Rome, Franjo Cardinal Seper. His Eminence wrote the letter in Croatian to Fr. Milan Mikulich OFM a pastor from Portland, Oregon, in the USA.

CUF News Service contacted the Cardinal to enquire if his letter could be made public. Permission was given and the letter was published subsequently in THE WANDERER, a conservative US national Catholic weekly. Because of his important position Cardinal Seper’s letter is very significant. The Congregation for Doctrine which he heads was formerly the Holy Office headed by Cardinal Ottaviani. It is responsible for safeguarding the magisterium in matters of faith and morals and formerly examined books considered pernicious or dangerous.

CARDINAL SEPER’S LETTER

OUR HOLY ROMAN MASS

On Saturday, 17th June 1972, Holy Mass according to the Old Roman Rite was celebrated in all its solemnity in Westminster Cathedral (London), in thanksgiving for the "permission", or rather, the official recognition, accorded by Paul VI to "the Mass of St Pius V". At the invitation of the Latin Mass Society (of England and Wales), several thousand Catholics from Britain, joined by a number from abroad, thronged the great cathedral. Many of the crowd were moved to the deepest emotion at thus witnessing the liturgy celebrated in all its traditional splendour. It was noted that the congregation knelt as one man at the Et Incarnatus Est of the Credo – the spontaneity of this small gesture bearing witness to the still persisting respect for hallowed traditions, which requires trickery and force to suppress it.

A minor misfortune was that there were not enough priests available to distribute Holy Communion and hear confessions – evidence that such a large attendance was totally unexpected.

The Mass was followed by the Annual General Meeting of the Latin Mass Society, to which the majority of the members of the British CCR League belong. It was attended also by a group of visitors from the Continent, headed by the indefatigable Dr Gerstner, organiser of the Rome pilgrimages. In an address read out on behalf of Dr E. de Saventhem, President of the International Una Voce Federation, who was unable to be present, there was included a suggestion that "the extremists" should consider leaving the LMS and forming their own organisation, as had been done by their counterparts in the German-speaking countries some years ago. This raises the question of precisely who are to be looked upon as "extremists". The term appeared to refer to those who – in many cases converts from Anglicanism who have reached the stage at which they simply cannot take any more – reject the new Ordo Missae entirely, as invalid and totally evil. However, a long and involved debate ensued, in the course of which a reference was made to me (from the floor - Tr.’s note) as to a rebel condemned, excommunicated (this latter term was, to the best of my memory, not used at the time, but seems to have crept into the report afterwards – Tr.’s note) by Rome. It was only right and proper that our friends should have refrained from interrupting in order to correct this unjustified statement, but it has been suggested that I should redefine our position, with particular reference to Dr de Saventhem’s remarks. Are we to be included among those whom he would invite to leave the LMS?

It would seem, according to several accounts that have reached me from Britain, that the so-called "extremist" stand, from which the self-styled "moderates" are careful to dissociate themselves, is given one or other of two entirely different interpretations. On the one hand, there are the "invalidists", whose viewpoint concerning the new Ordo Missae we consider to be an exaggeration leading to dogmatic error – and so we must be classed with the "moderates" upon this point. On the other hand, there is the so-called "extremist" view which would insist upon the right of every priest to celebrate according to the rite of St Pius V, as opposed to the "moderate" one, which is content to accept as a gift of God, granted by our Most Holy Father Paul VI, the "indult" for the occasional celebration of this same Mass if the bishop happens to be disposed to grant permission. (We have heard through our British organisers that three English bishops have already announced that they have no intention of doing so.) No, we do not hold at all with this kind of moderation! We are of the firm opinion that every priest has the right for all time to celebrate Holy Mass according to the age-old rite of the Church, because this rite is intrinsically venerable, hallowed and lawful. Moreover, I feel I am not speaking out of turn in reassuring our friends in Britain that Dr Eric de Saventhem cannot have meant the adherents of this latter point of view when he spoke about the "extremists" whom he would like to leave the Society. For they are, surely, among its most valuable elements.

My own view is that the New Mass is doomed to disintegrate and disappear, together with all the other creations of Vatican II and Paul VI. In the meantime, all possible means, short of violence or schism, must be used to keep alive the Mass of all time. The "indult" – the recognition by the Pope that this Mass still has a right to exist – is therefore a point of capital importance for us. Regardless of the thwarting of this "permission" through the ill will of bishops or priests, it will contribute to the continued celebration, or re-introduction, of the traditional rite. Let us take cheer, therefore, for, whatever the obstacles that still remain, we are conscious that Heaven is fighting for our liberation.

Let us take another look at the dogmatic principles on which there seems to be general agreement within our CRC: The Holy Mass is the sacred Action performed by Christ the High Priest and the Church His Spouse, accomplished at the hands of the priest, with the assistance of the faithful. The priest alone has the power to confect the Sacrament, and in the absence of this, its essence, there is no Mass, only a sacrilegious parody. From the moment that the Words of Consecration have been pronounced over the bread and wine by a true priest who is acting in accordance with this intention "to confect the Sacrament" Christ is present, re-enacting His Sacrifice, and giving Himself in Holy Communion.

Every true and valid Mass, being the Action of Jesus Christ, Son of God and Sovereign High Priest, is therefore essentially holy and profitable to those who take part, regardless of what ideas the priest may hold, regardless also of the rest of the prayers and rites, regardless of the feelings and actions of the priest and others present. It is the presence of Christ that matters.

The question of validity being settled, there remains that of licitness. The Mass being the Sacrifice offered by Christ for His Mystical Body, the Church alone can be the judge of the perfection of its outward form. We have the right and the duty to protest against the imposition by the Pope and bishops of a new liturgy which is in conflict with Catholic Tradition, and one which is suspect in more ways than one. But, while awaiting the day when the Magisterium itself shall pronounce upon it, we have no authority ourselves to condemn this liturgy as illicit, and thus to force priests and faithful to keep clear of it. To do so would be to set ourselves up as a magisterium parallel to, or indeed ranking higher than, that of the Pope and bishops.

That each individual should act in accordance with his honest and informed conscience is his right in natural moral law. Those whose horror at the new rite will make them to go any lengths to avoid assisting at anything other than the traditional liturgy are only exercising that sacred liberty that should be so dear to the heart of our bishops. We most certainly support those priests who teach their flock to practise that which is good and to choose always what is most perfect.

But every valid Mass being the Action of Christ, it is thereby holy, and this holiness makes it the object of respect and veneration by all. Regardless of our divergent opinions, it is our duty to remain within the bounds of the One Church, united to our Holy Father the Pope, the bishops, priests and faithful. It is our Catholic Mass which is the bond of this unity. Through its very existence, every valid Mass – of whatever rite – serves to make us ONE.

Those "extremists" who would forbid, unlawfully, the celebration of the Mass of St Pius V, because it forms an obstacle to their "reforms" and those who on their own and non-existent authority would forbid the Mass as it is currently and validly celebrated, according to the new rite – which we don’t like any better than they do – are both in their respective ways acting to divide the Church. We must fight and suffer without falling into sin. Where Christ is, there is the Church, and there is her Unity.

PREPARING FOR VATICAN III

CATHOLIC ECUMENISM
(Preliminary Schema)

"What has revealed the love of God among us is that the only-begotten Son of God has been sent by the Father into the world, so that, being made man, the Son might by His redemption of the entire human race give new life to it and unify it... Before offering Himself up as a spotless victim upon the altar of the cross, He prayed to His Father for those who believe: ‘That all may be one even as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us, that the world may believe that thou hast sent me’ (Jn 17.21)… After being lifted up on the cross and glorified, the Lord Jesus poured forth the Spirit whom He had promised, and through whom He has called and gathered together the people of the New Covenant, who comprise the Church, into a unity of faith, hope, and charity. For, as the apostle teaches, the Church is: "one body and one Spirit, even as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism.’ (Eph 4.4-5)… The Church, then, God’s only flock, like a standard lifted high for the nations to see… ministers the gospel of peace to all mankind… This is the sacred mystery of the unity of the Church, in Christ and through Christ, with the Holy Spirit energizing a variety of functions… From her very beginnings there arose in this one and only Church of God certain rifts which the apostle strongly censures as damnable… But in subsequent centuries more widespread disagreements appeared and quite large Communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church…"

Barring the choice of a term here and there, we can find nothing wrong with this text taken from the opening paragraphs of the Vatican II Decree on Ecumenism (Nos 2 and 3), and we could incorporate it into our schema, which will thereafter be continued in the safe line of the Tradition of the Church, from which the Vatican II Decree soon begins to deviate. Christ did not found, nor had He any intention of founding, a number of Churches, but One single Church, built, upon a visible, unshakeable Rock, which is Peter. This Church is beyond any dispute the Church of Rome, headed by the Pope. She is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic, and this description cannot be applied to any other body. Those who have left her, either singly or in groups, have split themselves off from this Oneness, but the Oneness persists without them. "This unity, we believe dwells in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose." He who separates himself from her commits what St Augustine described as the gravest of all the sins against charity, which is the sin of schism. On leaving her, he separates himself from Christ Himself, a state of affairs which is passed on to his descendants like some hereditary blemish. He who provokes or defends such an act of schism by formally rejecting any part of the Faith of the Church is guilty of the sin of pride in the greatest possible degree, for he places his own opinions before the teaching of the Church: he is guilty of heresy. This too becomes part of the heritage of his descendants who, in their turn, will confound the falsehood with the Christian religion, albeit, in their case, in good faith.

There is only one possible remedy to this state of division, and this lies in the return to the one Fold of those who have strayed from it. Christians who are in schism or heresy, though they be closer to the Church than non-Christians, must nevertheless undergo "conversion" in the fullest sense of the word, in order to enter her. This proves in some ways more difficult than the acceptance of the Faith by non-Christians, for it involves the renouncement of their already established concept of Christianity in exchange for that taught them by the Church. In her relations with those schismatics who are closest to her – the Orthodox, the Anglicans and the Old Catholics – the Church has sought to make this return easier through certain friendly overtures towards them. In the case of the others, who are heretics in the full sense of the word, her approach must be based on attempts to convert individuals through her preaching and polemics. The great projects for the worldwide reunion of all these communities founded upon error and in opposition to the Church’s Magisterium have always been mere wishful thinking. While the Church may show the greatest possible charity towards individuals, whom she is careful not to confound with their heretical beliefs, she cannot possibly regard the religious bodies founded by the initiators of the great heresies as so many communities waiting to be absorbed into her bosom. No, all that she could – and did, up to the very eve of the Council – hope for was that the steady stream of individual conversions might change into a flood. The rising tide of materialism that characterised the Occident, on the one hand, and the threat of atheistic communism on the other, served only to make this more likely.

But Vatican II, under the direction of its "Secretariat for Christian Unity" chose to embark upon a different course – the one foreshadowed way back in 1937 by Congar’s book "Christians in Disunity". The new approach consists in looking upon the "churches" as so many disjointed members of the one Mystical Body, whose unity is to be re-formed through the reconciliation, upon equal terms, of these separated bodies. Though the terms are chosen with care, in order to avoid shocking the sensitive, it amounts to a reversal of thinking, from that which saw the Church as the Living Organism from which no part can split off without itself dying, to one viewing her as merely one among the members – perhaps indeed the chief among them – but like the rest in the sense that she too suffers from a deficiency as long as the others remain separated from her. The Church, in other words, cannot claim to be in the full sense, One Holy, Catholic or Apostolic as long as she has not become reconciled with her separated brethren. Neither can she claim to be exclusively guided by the Holy Spirit while she remains apart from the rest. And so the "Ecumenical Movement" which was conceived and set in motion outside the Church and in direct opposition to her is now looked upon as coming from the Holy Spirit, and we see the Church trying her best to join in, and ready to renounce her long-established claims as too presumptuous.

What has this pursuit of "ecumenism at all costs" led to in practice? Having renounced her exclusive title as the "Church of Christ", the Conciliar and post-Conciliar Church claims to see the Holy Spirit at work everywhere, even within schism and heresy, which become thus possible alternative pathways to salvation. She is ready to sacrifice her dogma, her liturgy, and her discipline to the short-term requirements of such a supposed "reconciliation" which is to know neither victor nor vanquished. Throwing over her dignity, disregarding the pronouncements of previous Popes and Councils, she is running to meet halfway the unrepentant offspring of those who had been anathematised by these Popes and Councils. The intention contains within itself the seed of the Church’s auto-demolition. Seeing what fruits it has brought, it is not difficult to agree that it constitutes, like the principle of "religious liberty", a denial of the Faith.

As far as the heads of the various sects are concerned, their arrogance has not lessened in any way, and the whole great Ecumenical Project begun by the Council remains little more than a game. Its only visible and concrete result has been the harm done to individual souls – those of Christians outside the Church who have lost all interest in becoming converted, and those of Catholics who are beginning to lose their own Faith as a result of seeing the honour and respect bestowed on what they were formerly taught to regard as schism and heresy.

This Ecumania seems to be heading to all intents and purposes towards the creation of a new universal religion – a spiritualistic humanism – which is ready to embrace everybody who, while paying lip service to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, is prepared to bow down before the god of physical well-being and prosperity on this earth. It is a "Democratic Union of all Religions" which is destroying the Church and driving her children to despair.

Vatican III will have to issue its own Charter for a Catholic Ecumenism, which it will place under the direction of the Church herself, who alone has the right over the earth and its Christian civilisation – is it not through her that the unfortunate offspring of schism and heresy retain some part of their sacred heritage – the Gospel, the Sacraments where these are still validly administered, and the Commandments of God?

Proposed Constitution of Vatican III
on
CATHOLIC ECUMENISM

The first step taken by the Council towards dialogue with the World was its Declaration of Man’s Right to Religious Liberty. There followed its Decree on Ecumenism, which ended the splendid isolation of the Catholic Church – together with the reason for this, which was her claim to be the One True Church. With this admission of religious pluralism, Equality soon followed in the wake of Liberty. Lastly, the unilateral agreement signed with the Judaic and other non-Christian religions established the Fraternity which was to complete the trio on which the new religion of Humanism is based. The charter of this is propounded in Gaudium et Spes…

John XXIII to Paul VI…

It is beyond any doubt that there was an abrupt change in thinking on the subject of ecumenism. This is made clear in the writings of Pastor Roux, one of the observers at Vatican II (Reflections of Protestant Theologians upon Vatican II - Unam Sanctam, Vol 64)

"… Pope John’s great project for the "aggiornamento" of the Church was from the beginning intended as an invitation to all men of good will, and first and foremost the ‘separated brethren’ to rejoin the One True Fold of Christ. On reading these texts again today (Ad Petri Cathedram, 29th June 1959) we see quite clearly that the ‘ecumenism’ of Pope John was not in any way ‘revolutionary’, amounting merely to a more generous interpretation of the classical theory concerning the ‘separated brethren’…" Pastor Roux is right – there was nothing very revolutionary about the ecumenism of Pope John. The only thing that was new – and this was of considerable importance – was the plan to "reform" the Church in a way that would render the return of these "separated brethren" easier. The two alternatives at that time were, either, to bring about a genuine renewal which would lead to the conversion of individuals and even entire religious groups on a large scale, or else, to allow the ecumenical project to direct the whole great plan of renewal into devious and dishonest paths.

It was with the coming of Pope Paul, and the increasing influence of Cardinal Bea, that an essentially different sort of "ecumenism" began to take over. Pastor Roux explains that in the beginning the "ecumenical approach" consisted in gestures of friendship, such as the invitation to the Protestant "observers", and a desire to remove any "obstacles to unity" at a time when the possible nature of such "unity" had not been defined. But the ambiguity of the term "ecumenical" began to appear even then. The traditional use of the tern in the Western Church took it for granted that the fullness of Catholic Christianity was vested in the Church alone, but, at the Council, it began to be used to refer to a "movement" by all the Christian denominations, and without reference to the jurisdiction of the Church of Rome, towards dialogue and unity.

The Change from "Catholic Ecumenism"…

In the first sense of the term, Roux continues, "ecumenism" – used by a Council self-designated as "ecumenical" – refers to a new approach, characterised by greater charity, even a readiness to admit having committed faults that may have accompanied and contributed to the separation, but it does not question the nature of the Church or ask what are the "true reasons" for the separation. "Catholic Ecumenism" represents primarily a moral and spiritual attitude… "We have no reason to doubt that this was the viewpoint of the majority of the Council Fathers; indeed, it could scarcely be otherwise, for there were few bishops before the Council who took the work of the Ecumenical Council of Churches, and the specialised studies of theologians at all seriously…"

It was indeed so – the vast majority of the bishops were truly Catholic and had not the least intention of questioning the dogmas or institutions of the One True Church, nor her long-established condemnations of the Schisms and Heresies. Ecumenism for them meant a great project that should, through showing every charity towards those outside the fold, facilitate their return into it. At that time, all was still well. But the change was to come…

Over to Protestant "Ecumenism"…

Let us continue quoting the Pastor Roux: - "After this initial stage, which consisted essentially in holding out an invitation to other Christians, … The Council had to pass a new milestone in its ecumenical development… consisting in its acceptance of the second meaning of the term, that which refers to a movement originating outside the Church of Rome… This entailed, it will be appreciated, a form of reversal in thinking. Without abandoning the invitation held out to non-Catholics, it now included also taking note of the invitation addressed to Catholics by the Ecumenical Movement – and thus by the other Churches and religious bodies. Instead of speaking… about Catholic Ecumenism, they began to speak about the Catholic point of view on Ecumenism." And this entailed, according to this observer, the re-examination of questions of doctrine, which had previously been evaded…

"This change in perspective was evident when Pope Paul VI received the observers, on the occasion of the opening of the Second Session… the need to formulate the questions relating to Ecumenism in theological terms was stressed at the time… It was for the Secretariat for Christian Unity to give concrete expression to this ecumenism founded on research and dialogue… Among the decisive stages we must include the discreet change in the title of Chapter I (of the Decree on Ecumenism) from the original ‘Principles of Catholic Ecumenism’ to ‘Catholic Principles on Ecumenism'…"

THE CHURCH EMBARKS ON A SUICIDAL PATH IN THE SEARCH FOR "ECUMENISM"

Who, and what, brought about the change in the Faith of our bishops which led them to accept the various "churches" and Christian communities as of equal value?

A bare ten years ago, such a partaking by the Church in the "Ecumenical Movement" would have been unthinkable for the vast majority of bishops, priests and faithful, and today, so we read (La Croix, 7th April), "It is accepted by all, and while there may be talk of the ‘difficulties’ it poses, nobody would today speak about its ‘dangers’…"

As far as France is concerned, a country of whose 44 million inhabitants some 43 million are Catholics, the matter has not aroused a great deal of interest; the only result of the ecumenical efforts has been to increase the "indifferentism" of the masses, and generally to lower the "credibility" of the "churches". Anxious to show quick results, the "professional ecumenists" are prepared to go to any lengths in their betrayal of Catholic honour… to outstrip the hierarchies who are advancing at too slow a pace, to grant each "local Church" the right to proceed towards "eucharistic hospitality" – in other words, intercommunion.

This entails in practice:

1). Persistent and sickening misrepresentation of the facts of history, aimed at justifying the heretics and schismatics, and laying the blame upon the Church that excommunicated them.

2). A frantic search for "formulae of agreement between Catholics and Protestants", calculated to give the impression that the obstacles to unity have been overcome, misunderstandings removed, and that essentially the Faith is the same.

3). A deliberate plan to blur the distinctions between different religions by the encouragement of intercommunion and the partaking by Protestant ministers in the priestly Ministry.

… One can understand the description, by a Roumanian Orthodox priest, of ecumenism as "one of the most dangerous and most contagious heresies of our time".

VATICAN II AND THE CHURCH'S ENTRY INTO THE ECUMENICAL MOVEMENT

Unitatis Redintegratio – the title of the Conciliar Decree – implies a restoration of, or a return to, unity, without specifying whether this refers to a return to the Catholic Church, or to the reconstitution of a unity which is to be approached along converging paths by all the different denominations, the Catholic Church included. This ambiguous talk is maintained throughout the Conciliar debates.

Reading Congar’s commentary, we find that he confirms what we have already learned from the Protestant Pastor Roux – that the change made in the title of Chapter I (Principles of Catholic Ecumenism to Catholic Principles on Ecumenism) "which had been desired by the observers, is of considerable significance… We could no longer speak, as we had in 1937 (Congar had not dared speak otherwise, in those days!) about a ‘Catholic Ecumenism’… but rather, about Catholic participation in Ecumenism, by which we mean a concrete effort to find again our unity, in which the Church as a whole, like its individual members, must remain loyal to Catholic principles, while playing their part in a movement which originated in the Protestant world…"

On the question of terminology, Congar accuses Paul VI of maintaining a "too Roman Catholic outlook" which might lead the Vatican to embark on an "autonomous movement towards unity" that could prove detrimental to the one directed by the World Council of Churches.

This choice of title then, shows us that the Church is beginning to regard herself as one of "the churches", no longer Sovereign and Unique. She does not formally renounce her title to this sovereignty – only she makes her claim to this "her own point of view", that is, one possible way of looking at things. We are witnessing the downgrading of the Faith to a mere opinion!

The Decree was approved on the 21st November 1964. The previous day, there had been 64 votes against, but on the day itself, when the Pope himself was present (he had made certain amendments in the text) only 11 voices out of 2148 were raised against it.

There had been a certain amount of scheming and plotting, to cause John XXIII to raise the Secretariat for Christian Unity to the rank of a Conciliar Commission, and to have its secretly prepared schema accepted in place of the one prepared in advance by the properly appointed Commission. What influence must have been exerted upon the bishops to make them place their blind trust in Cardinal Bea and approve his text which they had not had a chance to study (a reference in Congar’s commentary is given for this statement, in the French CRC - Tr.’s note)?

Even though the text prepared by the Secretariat for Unity had been approved by the very large majority quoted above, on the 20th November, it was so definitely heretical that Paul VI himself felt impelled to impose nineteen amendments, so as to make it less un-Catholic. Congar assures us that these amendments are of little importance. "Having re-read these chapters, I can assure the reader that their general trend remains unchanged. If you were reading them for the first time, without any knowledge of this episode, you would have no doubt that they constituted a clear-cut statement of the Church’s intention – agreed unanimously with the Pope at its head – to work towards ecumenism. No, it is not correct to say that the text has been devalued. Which of us could have believed, even three years ago, that such a statement could have received unanimous approval."

Well, what are we to think? After reading the text, we have come to the conclusion that the nineteen relevant passages contained formal heresy, and therefore it is untrue to maintain that the corrections are of no significance. On the other hand, the text as a whole remains infected with the same heretical taint, which no correction of mere detail can eliminate. In a wider sense, therefore, the conclusion is correct. The removal of the most blatant phrases has not really changed the essence of the whole.

Its manufacturers seemed certainly to look upon the Decree as an important "breakthrough". We find Congar referring to it as the "solemn collegial expression of intention on the part of the Pastoral Magisterium…" Obviously full of joy at the result, he admits that the Council Fathers had little idea what they were voting about. (The French CRC gives the reference to the relevant passages)

The Decree - Chapter I: "Catholic Principles on (Protestant) Ecumenism"

How is it possible for a Church which claims to be – and bases its claim on the teaching of Christ and God the Father – the only true and holy one, to join a club of "churches" whose origin lay in a breakaway from her? This is what the Decree is about, though the answers given in it are necessarily characterised by a certain ambiguity.

The Preamble (No 1). This is frankly Protestant in tone. "In recent times (the Lord) has begun to bestow more generously upon divided Christians remorse over their divisions and a longing for unity. Everywhere, large numbers have felt the impulse of this grace, and among our separated brethren also there increases from day to day a movement, fostered by the grace of the Holy Spirit, for the restoration of unity among Christians." This "longing for unity" and "remorse over their divisions" should affect all equally and so "This sacred Synod… moved by a desire for the restoration of unity among all the followers of Christ… wishes to set before all Catholics certain helps, pathways, and methods by which they too can respond to this divine summons and grace." It is clear that the ecumenical movement led by the World Council of Churches is meant, and not by any stretch of imagination a unity within the Catholic Church.

Chapter I (Nos 2-4). We have already quoted the introductory passage which, like the whole of No 2, is entirely Catholic.

No 3 discusses the reasons for the "rifts" within "this one and only Church of God". The responsibility is largely placed on the failings of the Church herself, but the greatest crime of the passage does not lie here, but in the omission, amounting to a lie, of the true origins of all the schisms and heresies, which arose by rebellion against the Church, against Christ Himself, against God. No, the Council claims instead that, though "separated from full communion with the Catholic Church", these bodies have remained in communion with "God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit…" It was all a matter of personal faults on both sides and these do not in any way affect the heirs of the rebels, except through causing mere misunderstandings which it is for the ecumenical movement to overcome. We learn that "the brethren divided from us also carry out many of the sacred actions of the Christian religion… these actions can truly engender a life of grace and can rightly be described as capable of providing access to the community of salvation. It follows that these separated Churches and Communities, though we believe (i.e. speaking from a pluralistic point of view, in the name of the Church) they suffer from defects… have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation."

But the final paragraph (of No 3) is calculated to allay our worries, for it says exactly the opposite of what has gone before. Here we read that it is indeed, "through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the all-embracing means of salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained… It is the one Body of Christ (referring here clearly to the Catholic Church) into which all those should be fully incorporated who already belong in any way to God’s people."

In No 4, we read again about the "ecumenical movement" which "under the inspiring grace of the Holy Spirit", "means those activities and enterprises which, according to various needs of the Church and opportune occasions, are started and organized for the fostering of unity among Christians. These are: first, every effort to eliminate words, judgements, and actions which do not respond to the conditions of separated brethren with truth and fairness, and so make mutual relations between them more difficult, then ‘dialogue’ between competent experts from different Churches and Communities" and "common prayer", and "finally, all are led to examine their own faithfulness to Christ’s will for the Church and, wherever necessary, undertake with vigour the task of renewal and reform." "Their primary duty (i.e. of Catholics) is to make an honest and careful appraisal of whatever needs to be renewed and achieved in the Catholic household itself, in order that its life may bear witness more loyally and luminously to the teachings and ordinances which have been handed down from Christ through the apostles."

Here we have the very Protestant idea which proved acceptable to the Council – that, guided by the Holy Spirit, each "church" (the Catholic Church among them) should reform itself in parallel with the rest.

There follows a passing reference to individual conversions, which they could not very well leave out altogether, but this is all incorporated into a text calculated to drown the Catholic thinking of the faithful in a universal ecumania. They will end up in complete disillusionment with their own Church. However, "this sacred Synod is gratified to note that participation by the Catholic faithful in ecumenical work is growing daily. It commends this work to bishops everywhere in the world for their skilful promotion and prudent guidance." Is not the result the mess all around us?

Chapter II: "The Practice of Ecumenism". Once you have accepted that the Holy Spirit is guiding those outside the Church, and are prepared to forget that they are following in the footsteps of their fathers' revolt against her, it becomes easy to accept also that in her "concern for restoring unity", the Church should be working at that "continual reformation of which she always has need".

"Every renewal of the Church essentially consists in an increase of fidelity to her own calling. Undoubtedly this explains the dynamism of the movement toward unity." If the context were that of "Catholic Ecumenism", we might perhaps agree with it. But the conclusion here is that everything which favours the (Protestant) "ecumenical movement" is part of the evangelical renewal of the Church. This assumption provides the green light for the systematic de-Catholicisation of the Church.

No 6 deals with this need for a "continual reformation". "Christ summons the Church, as she goes her pilgrim way, to that continual reformation of which she always has need, insofar as she is an institution of men here on earth… Church renewal therefore has notable ecumenical importance." The word "therefore" suggests that assuming, as they clearly do, that the reforms will be for the best, they submit the value of these to the judgement of the other religious bodies in preference to that of the Church’s own Tradition. "Already this renewal is taking place in various spheres of the Church’s life: the biblical and liturgical movements, the preaching of the word of God, catechetics, the apostolate of the laity, new forms of religious life and the spirituality of married life, and the Church’s social teaching and activity. All these should be considered as favourable pledges and signs of ecumenical progress in the future." It is for the followers of Calvin, Zwingli and Luther to point the way for the Reformation of the Catholic Church, for it is, after all, they who have remained more faithful to the Gospel.

The Council then appeals for "a change of heart" in individual Catholics (No 7). In their "yearning for unity" they must show "self-denial and unstinted love". Though the exhortations would seem to be to follow the teaching of the Church with greater loyalty, these will nevertheless serve only to confuse the faithful. "Let all Christ’s faithful remember that the more purely they strive to live according to the gospel, the more they are fostering and even practising Christian unity. For they can achieve depth and ease in strengthening mutual brotherhood to the degree that they enjoy profound communion with the Father, the Word, and the Spirit." [The English edition of the Vatican II Documents used here (Ed. Walter M. Abbott SJ, published by Geoffrey Chapman, 1966) has a footnote referring to this passage which may be of interest to readers: "It can be said that this paragraph means Catholics who participate in the renewed liturgy are engaged in a basic ecumenical activity. By its Constitution on The Sacred Liturgy, promulgated at the close of the second session, Dec 4, l963, the Council took steps to renewal of faith and holiness in the Church that are needed for basic ecumenical progress." (Tr.)]

Nos 8-12 are concerned with hastening the disappearance of all that is distinctively Catholic, and its replacement by the ecumenical.

Worship in Common. "Prayers in common are certainly a very effective means of petitioning for the grace of unity, and they are a genuine expression of the ties which even now bind Catholics to their separated brethren. ‘For where two or three are gathered together for my sake, there am I in the midst of them’ (Mt 18.20)."

St Matthew certainly did not intend such a hypocritical misuse of his words! Communicatio in sacris has always been an abomination in the eyes of our Fathers, forbidden by the Church as contrary to divine law. He who engages in it, incurs ipso facto excommunication. The Decree recalls this, but as in other matters, only in order to allow the practice in by a back door. "As for common worship, however, it may not be regarded as a means to be used indiscriminately for the restoration of unity among Christians. Such worship depends chiefly on two principles: it should signify the unity of the Church; it should provide a sharing in the means of grace." Instead of both conditions being necessary, it becomes an "either or": "The fact that it should signify unity generally rules out common worship. Yet the gaining of a needed grace sometimes commends it." So, provided only that it does not take place "indiscriminately" it is quite permissible to practise what is forbidden by divine law.

Mutual understanding. It is for Catholics to "study", and "acquire a more adequate understanding of the distinctive doctrines of our separated brethren… Of great value for this purpose are meetings between the two sides, especially for discussion of theological problems, where each can deal with the other on an equal footing… From dialogue of this sort will emerge still more clearly what the true posture of the Catholic Church is." Our Faith is to be treated "on an equal footing" with heresy!

Theological study. This too is to go ecumenical. "It is highly important that future bishops and priests should have mastered a theology carefully worked out in this way and not polemically." "Instruction… must be presented from an ecumenical point of view, so that at every point they (i.e. "theology and other branches of knowledge) may more accurately correspond with the facts of the case." (?!) No 11 is a masterpiece of hypocrisy. "It is, of course essential that doctrine be clearly presented in its entirety. Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false conciliatory approach which harms the purity of Catholic doctrine…" But we are immediately told that there is a "hierarchy of truths, since they vary in their relationship to the foundation of the Christian faith." In order to lay bare these "foundations" upon which all can agree, the Catholic religion is to be purged of all that might obscure them and form obstacles to unity.

Lastly, there is co-operation on a practical level – our joint concern with the things of this world: "Through such co-operation all believers in Christ are able to learn easily how they can understand each other better and esteem each other more, and how the road to the unity of Christians may be made smooth". The furtherance of unity by working together at the building of the Tower of Babel?

Chapter III. "The Churches and Ecclesial Communities separated from the Roman Apostolic See"

The divisions are viewed in a false perspective. The schisms and heresies down the centuries are listed, but their true origins, and also the intentions which inspired them, are glossed over, in favour of mere analytical discussion of "disputes over dogmatic pronouncements" and "breakdown of ecclesiastical communion." It consists of a gigantic list of omissions.

The valuable traditions and heritage of the "Eastern Churches" receive eloquent mention – but there is a deliberate confusion of the Orthodox, schismatic rites, with those of the oriental Catholic Church. Much of the text simply disregards the existence of the latter. The split between East and West is shown as though no discredit attached to those who went into schism – it was the Western Church which had shown too little understanding. The age-old war waged by Orthodoxy upon Rome is forgotten, and so is the excommunication of 1054.Though there is a passing eulogy of Eastern Catholics, they are left out of account in the discussion of reunion with the Orthodox. It looks as though, in her eagerness to affect her peace with their persecutors, the Conciliar Church is prepared to let her own children be sacrificed. The Decree Orientalis Ecclesiae, which was prepared by a select body of Eastern Catholics, is couched in a totally different vein, and considers the proposed reunion in terms of a reintegration of the schismatic bodies into the relevant local Churches in communion with Rome. This approach drew forth an attack upon them, led by Cardinal Koenig, who accused Mgr Bukatko (Archbishop of Belgrade) of not acknowledging the rightful status of the Orthodox bodies as "Churches" in their own right and of viewing the problem as one of conversion rather than reconciliation upon equal terms! The Archbishop had cause to accuse the Council Fathers of showing less understanding towards the Catholics of the Eastern rites than they had towards non-Catholics or Jews. For the ecumenists were evidently ready to sacrifice the Uniates to the cause of unity with the schismatic Easterners, and allow their identity to be submerged in these bodies… We read also of the request by Mgr Cristea, Roumanian bishop in exile, that the Council should send a plea to the United Nations concerning the fate of six million Catholics in Roumania and the Ukraine, who were deprived of their freedom of worship. What a hope! The Council clearly would not lift a little finger if that might hurt the feelings of the Orthodox – or of their secular branch the Communists!

The Protestants come in for their share of admiration. "The Churches and ecclesial Communities which were separated (were separated?) from the Apostolic See of Rome during the very serious crisis that began in the West at the end of the Middle Ages… are bound to the Catholic Church by a special affinity and close relationship…"

In the discussion of similarities and differences the essence of Protestantism is not mentioned – that it arose as a revolt against the Church. Hence, the spiritual upheaval is a total one, for the Catholic’s Faith rests on the teaching of the Church as the infallible interpreter of Divine Revelation, while the Protestant follows his own lights. This essential difference remains even in matters where the beliefs of the latter approach the teaching of the Church. His Faith in Christ, for instance, differs in being something in the nature of a subjective opinion.

Much is made of their "love, veneration, and near cult of the sacred Scriptures". This sentence was almost unanimously acclaimed by the Council: "At the prompting of the Holy Spirit, they find God in the Holy Scriptures, who speaks to them in Christ." It was the Pope himself who changed this frankly heretical statement to the following: "Calling upon the Holy Spirit, they seek in these sacred Scriptures God as He speaks to them in Christ…"

The disagreements are made to appear secondary: "Christians separated from us… think differently… about the relationship between Scriptures and the Church."

The sacraments are considered without reference to the body within which they are administered. As Baptism "constitutes a sacramental bond of unity linking all who have been reborn by means of it", we can evidently look upon all the rest as mere denominational differences. We must draw attention here to that most extraordinary statement of the Council, concerning the Lord’s Supper of the Protestants. "Nevertheless when they commemorate the Lord’s death and resurrection in the Holy Supper, they profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and they await His coming in glory. For these reasons, dialogue should be undertaken concerning the true meaning of the Lord’s Supper…"

However, the Holy Spirit would look after things, so there was no need to worry. "So… we confidently look to the future. This most sacred Synod urgently desires that the initiatives of the sons of the Catholic Church, joined with those of the separated brethren, go forward without obstructing the ways of divine Providence, and without prejudging the future inspiration of the Holy Spirit." They are clearly determined that nothing is to be allowed to stand in the way of uninterrupted ecumenical progress. The ecumenical yardstick has become the only admissible one.

VATICAN III AND CATHOLIC ECUMENISM

Just as the Declaration of man’s right to religious liberty involves the setting up of Man as an equal to God, so the search for Unity through the reconciliation, upon equal terms, of the various communities and sects – the Catholic Church among them – implies the subordination of this divinely constituted Church of Christ to an organisation created by man. Here, as in the case of the Declaration on Religious Liberty (see CCR No 28), Vatican III will have to begin with a solemn repudiation of the Protestant-inspired ecumania which the Council Fathers of Vatican II had so uncritically supported.

The principle to be condemned is that of regarding the Church as one of many bodies that can seek to unite on terms of equality. It is this principle – expounded by Congar in Christians in Disunity (1937), which was condemned by Pius XII – that lies at the basis of all the assaults upon dogma, discipline and morals that we see today. Instead, Vatican III will have to redefine the Oneness of the Church – a Oneness which can encompass the others only if they return to her, but which persists within her, by virtue of God’s grace, regardless of them. This doctrine is expounded and developed in another book which might well form the basis of the new text, Cardinal Journet’s Union of the Churches (1927). We must return to the ecumenism of Pius XI, Pius XII, and John XXIII, all of which, in line with the Church’s Tradition, implies the "reconquest" of lost territories. It will be for the new Council to work out further the pastoral applications of this, to the greater glory of the Catholic Counter-Reformation of the 20th Century.

The Principles of Catholic Ecumenism

"There is one form of unity which is an abomination in the eyes of God, and there is another form, for which He shed His blood." (Cardinal Journet) The Unity of the Catholic Church will have to be reaffirmed by Vatican III. The Council could do well to adopt the text of No 2 of the Vatican II Decree for this purpose. This unity will, moreover, have to be re-established! The Apostolic nature of the Church will also have to be defined; this implies that it is an act of schism to repudiate any part of the heritage of the Church, or to maintain that any of her major decisions in the past had been wrong. The indifferentism which forms the basis of the preamble of the Vatican II Decree – implying that all are equally to blame for the divisions among Christians – must therefore be formally condemned.

It is the Church that possesses Truth, Unity, Holiness and Charity, regardless of the personal deficiencies of her members, past or present. The so-called "churches" and dissident communities exist against the will of God and do not receive the grace of His Spirit. If their individual members have however great personal merits, this is only the more reason why they should enter the Church. The Catholic’s membership of the Church is holy, however unholy he may be as a person. The dissident Christian’s membership of his community is inherently evil, even if he has very great personal merits. In as far as his membership involves a conscious rejection of the Church, it serves to keep him apart from God.

While Vatican II was ready automatically to exonerate the descendants of the originators of the schisms and heresies, and even give them credit for preserving the rich heritage of these, Vatican III will have to be precise and specific in its distinction between material and formal heresy or schism.

Doctrinally, the teaching of the dissident bodies contains: 1) Material elements retained from their Catholic past. To read the Vatican II Decree you would think that these formed the sum total. 2) Elements which are far from Catholic and thus an essential part of the false teaching. 3) Lastly, the essential element of every schism and heresy, which is the rebellion against the Church. The total omission of this aspect is the major falsehood pervading the Vatican II Decree.

Morally, one has to distinguish between the formal adherents of the dissident sects – including, of course, their founders and their leaders, theologians, etc., who are fully aware of the implication of their membership – and those whose membership is only a material one, because they happen to have been born into a particular religious community. While the former are ipso facto cut off from the Church, being her enemies, the latter, who are in good faith, can have access to supernatural grace and make use of those parts of the Christian heritage which still remain to them, for the furtherance of their supernatural life: the Church looks upon them as her own, as their separation from her involves no guilt. But as they run a great risk of falling into formal dissidence, the aim must always be their conversion.

The new pastoral approach to ecumenism which Vatican III must adopt, will be based on the above distinctions, The overall aim is the reconquest by the Church of the lost territories.

The false teachings of the schisms and heresies must again be formally condemned, and this should be combined with a careful exposition of their errors, showing why these conflict with divine Revelation. The Church will not shrink from controversy with the present day representatives of these sects, while her approach to the rank and file of their members will be one of greatest friendship and understanding, for are they not in truth already her own, needing only to understand that their wish for unity can only be fulfilled by returning to their fold?

Rome must again become the centre of unity in the fullest sense of the word, and the "reunion" must begin with the Catholics of the Latin rite, divided among themselves as a result of the New Reformation. Next, the unity between Catholics of the East and West must be strengthened, in full acknowledgement of their diversity, whose importance must however not be exaggerated to the point at which it threatens this very unity.

We must not neglect the importance of that which still remains in common between Catholics on the one hand and on the other, the Orthodox, the Anglicans, and the Old Catholics respectively. In this sphere, there would seem to be some hope for a massive return to the fold, as had been intended by John XXIII.

With regard to the true Protestants, it is in the interests of these souls themselves – in so far as they are in good faith – that the errors of their denominations should be expounded without false compromise that might seem to lessen the need for them to become converted.

Here, we might profitably quote Vatican II, regarding the power of the Holy Spirit to effect what seems impossible in human eyes; "that they may be one, that the world may believe…"