Ecumenism does not further the unity of Christians. In fact, it reduces the chances of all those validly baptised but not consciously subject to the Episcopate in union with the Pope from becoming subject to them. The first and most important reason for this is that it implicitly denies the importance of Christian unity. When it was said “you are a heretic and/or a schismatic. Come back to Christ’s Church or you will die in your sins” the urgency of Christian unity was made abundantly clear. By presuming misinformed good faith on the part of the irregularly baptised (as was previously done only until the age of fourteen) the authorities implicitly deny or at least greatly scale back the visibility of the Church. This of course is self-fulfilling. By making such an assumption the visibility of the Church is indeed diminished. Ecumenical dialogue is equally self-defeating because by engaging in this practice either a) the nature of the Church’s teaching and credentials are made clear and the subjective guilt of the other party secured while paradoxically by virtue of the dialogue he is mislead into thinking there is no true urgency to his conversion, or b) the faith is obscured and distorted in a spirit of dishonest irenicism. In the second instance the other party’s guilt my be diminished but the ‘Catholic’ party sins gravely.
There is no prospect of corporate reunion for members of groups without valid Apostolic Succession and so there is no purpose in trying to discover how we might not really disagree so very much about a, b or c. The key point is that these persons are failing in their duty of submission to the hierarchy established by Christ, they are cut off from the sure norm of doctrine and from the sacraments. They are thus morally incapable of remaining in a state of grace indefinitely, already in material heresy, very likely in formal heresy and (if not invincibly ignorant) specifically culpable for this as well as for all the other sins weighing upon them and without the Eucharist and Penance to assist them on the way. Those who belong to true particular churches not in communion with the See of Rome have all embraced heresies of one sort or another. They obviously deny the universal ordinary jurisdiction and infallible magisterium of the Roman Pontiff and therefore of many Ecumenical Councils as well. The Dissident Byzantine Churches deny the indissolubility of marriage, the simplicity of the Divine Nature, the doctrine of Deification, and (usually) the Filioque. The other schismatic eastern Churches deny the Hypostatic Union in one way or another. It is simply not the case that we really agree on these topics and it is all a matter of misunderstanding. That was true in enough instances to make a difference up until 1439, not anymore. Consequently, for these Churches to reunite corporately with the Catholic Church every single one of their bishops would have to detest and abhor these errors and that will only happen through a miracle of grace and through the clear proclamation of the Gospel on out part (the same method required to facilitate individual conversion) not through ecumenical dialogue.
The decision to pursue ecuminism is a prudential decision of one General Council and a few Popes. Just as many General Councils decided to launch Crusades and demand the execution of heretics. Just as Vatican II insisted that Latin be preserved as the language of the Roman Rite and no unnecessary changes be made to it. Just as Lateran IV forbade the founding of new religious orders. Just as Martin IV excommunicated Michael VIII and Clement XIV dissolved the Jesuits. One need not agree with every prudential decision of a Pope or Council. When the consequences have been manifestly scandalous and self-defeating it is time to think again.
September 16, 2012 at 12:36 pm
You write, “In the second instance the other party’s guilt my be diminished but the ‘Catholic’ party sins gravely.”
I agree, with the rider that the guilt of the non-Catholic is, I hope, expunged, as he has been deceived by what he has been led to believe by Catholics. I have no doubt that the deceivers, not the deceived, will be whacked.
September 16, 2012 at 3:46 pm
Well yes but if that deprives the irregularly baptised party of the sacraments and the magisterium the fact that he may not be specifically guilty of schism isn’t going to enable him to obtain absolution or to receive the Blessed Sacrament. Consequently it is still highly injurious to his chances of eternal salvation.
September 16, 2012 at 4:20 pm
“They are thus morally incapable of remaining in a state of grace indefinitely” Distinguo: in general and for the most part, or in every single case? The first alternative sounds likely, though can it be rigorously proved? The second alternative seems over-strict; baptism does not only infuse sanctifying grace at the moment of reception, but is also a title to the future actual graces needed to live the Christian life (as is Christian matrimony if the person receives that sacrament). A baptised Protestant who is in good faith and who has, as is possible, used the graces of baptism to resist the temptations of the world, the flesh and the devil does not seem to be inevitably heading for a fall.
Nevertheless I quite agree about the misguidedness of the ecumenical movement.
September 16, 2012 at 5:25 pm
In what sense then do you hold the Eucharist to be necessary for salvation? Our Lord seems very clear about it in John 6.
September 16, 2012 at 6:01 pm
‘The thing [res] of a sacrament {in this case, the grace uniting one to the mystical body} can be had before the reception of the sacrament, from the desire of receiving the sacrament. And so, before the reception of this sacrament [sc. the Eucharist] a man can have salvation from the desire of receiving this sacrament’ (3a q.73 a.3) And, even apart from the question of ‘implicit desire’ (admitted by Pius XII as regards the desire of membership of the Catholic Church), the Protestant in good faith presumably has the desire of receiving the Eucharist instituted by our Lord at the Last Supper. So he can for example make a spiritual communion when he receives the elements at the Protestant service.
I don’t say that this is the normal case, but that it is possible.
September 16, 2012 at 8:02 pm
As Our Lord’s words are “unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood you will have no life in you” it seems strange to suppose that one can reject the doctrine of the real presence and still make a spiritual communion.
September 17, 2012 at 10:46 am
The presence of our Lord’s body and blood in the Eucharist is the ‘res et sacramentum’; the grace of union with His mystical body is the ‘res tantum’. It’s possible to receive the res of a sacrament while missing the res et sacramentum (as happens in baptism by desire), or even while having erroneous ideas about the latter (as would happen if someone was baptised while not believing – without pertinacity – in the baptismal character). If someone has a desire based on supernatural faith to receive the grace promised to those who receive the Eucharist, I don’t see why he couldn’t make a spiritual communion as a Protestant.
The question is how likely it is that a Protestant should be in this position. As you say, the ecumenical movement seems to proceed under the idea that it is the normal state of affairs. Newman apparently had a different view; speaking in 1851 when almost everyone professed Christianity, he said, ‘It is piercing enough to think what little faith there is in the country’ (Present Position of Catholics, lecture VI).
September 18, 2012 at 6:45 am
Thank you for making this point about ecumenism. Since the Catholic Church adopted ecumenism as an official policy at the Second Vatican Council, more Catholics have left the Church for other Christian groups than at any other time in history – far more than left at the time of the Reformation.This calamitous failure is a parallel to the vast numbers of Catholics who have abandoned any faith at all after the Church’s adoption of a favourable stance towards the non-Catholic world at Vatican II. don’t expect the lesson of these events to be drawn by the knaves who are responsible for these policies though.
November 5, 2013 at 4:54 am
[…] Ecumenism is self-defeating (exlaodicea.wordpress.com) […]