Monday, August 20, 2018

True And False Ecumenism

Since the Great Apostasy that was the Second Vatican [Robber] Council of 1962-1965, ecumenism has become a dirty word for those who retain the Catholic Faith. This is rightfully so, as one need only think of the Assisi abominations which took place in 1986, 1993, and 2002 (all under John Paul the Great Apostate), in 2011 (under Ratzinger), and in 2016 under Bergoglio. All the false religions of the world were invited to gather together and pray to their false gods for "peace." These religions included: Islam, Buddhism, Sikhismo, African Tribal "Witch Doctors," Hinduism, Tenriko, Shintoism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Jainism, and Confucianism. The problems with such a meeting is manifold as it teaches several heresies:
  • God hears the prayers of false religions
  • There is no difference between the God of Catholicism (the True God) and false gods like "Allah," the moon god of the Mohammedans 
  • error has "rights," the alleged "right" to worship whatever they choose, anyway they want
  • violence is always wrong and never permitted (e.g., a just war or personal self-defense)
  • Christ is not the Prince of Peace, and by submission to His One True Church you do not obtain peace, rather "peace" is some "coexistence" to get along and solve humanistic problems
  • Christ and His Church is not the exclusive way to salvation. All beliefs are more or less good and praiseworthy, all systems of morals are more or less acceptable (as long as you "try to be a good person") and all paths lead to salvation
  • The True Church is "divided" and needs to "reunite" with false sects calling themselves "Christian," and then all religions must "unite as brothers and sisters" in a One World Religion 
The Novus Bogus "mass" is ecumenical in nature as a result of the heretical Vatican II ecclesiology. To give but a few examples:
  • It resembles the Protestant "Lord's Supper" with singing and hand-holding around a table
  • The role of the "priest" is more or less that of a Protestant minister. "Homilies" and self-help talks is mostly all they do
  • Belief in the Real Presence (which they no longer have anyway) is virtually obliterated by people standing for "communion" and putting it in their hand, while being dressed immodestly or like a slob
  • The "priesthood of all believers" is seen by laymen and laywomen handing out "communion;" the laity reads the "lectionary;" and married "deacons" are doing almost everything the so-called priest does
The Vatican II sect is also ecumenical in what they omit in their teachings and "homilies." You will never hear:
  • There is no salvation Outside the One True Church
  • Islam is Satanic in origin
  • Catholicism should be the State religion
  • Error has no rights
All of this comes as a result of the heretical ecclesiology of Vatican II that teaches there is a Church of Christ distinct from the Roman Catholic Church. The Church of Christ is present in its "fullness" in the Roman Catholic Church, but it is present in various degrees in false sects according to how many "elements of truth" they possess. To have all the elements is best, but just having some is good too, and leads to salvation. If you look back at the examples of ecumenism I gave, it's easy to see how they are the logical result of this false ecclesiology (or "teaching on the nature of the Church"). You often hear about someone being or entering into "full communion" with Modernist Rome, which clearly implies you can be in "partial communion." This is why Wojtyla (John Paul II) could kiss the Satanic Koran; because it contains some "elements of truth." By the same logic you could kiss the Satanic Bible because it has "some truth" in it too.

Therefore, it is no wonder that ecumenism is rightfully seen as a dirty word. Many will be surprised that there is a truly Catholic ecumenism! The correct concept of ecumenism will be explored in this post. The information below is, in large part, condensed from Catholic Ecumenism, Catholic University of America Press, 1953 (published with full ecclesiastical approval) by theologian Hanahoe.

The Authentic Ecumenism Taught By The Church

1. Unity. The Church was not only numerically one from the Will and intention of Christ, but She also has ever been one and shall be one until the end of time, as it is one of the Four Marks of the Church. Pope Pius XI taught:

This Church, after being so wonderfully instituted, could not, on the removal by death of its Founder and of the Apostles who were the pioneers in propagating it, be entirely extinguished and cease to be, for to it was given the commandment to lead all men, without distinction of time or place, to eternal salvation: "Going therefore, teach ye all nations." In the continual carrying out of this task, will any element of strength and efficiency be wanting to the Church, when Christ Himself is perpetually present to it, according to His solemn promise: "Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world?" It follows then that the Church of Christ not only exists to-day and always, but is also exactly the same as it was in the time of the Apostles, unless we were to say, which God forbid, either that Christ our Lord could not effect His purpose, or that He erred when He asserted that the gates of hell should never prevail against it. (See Mortalium Animos, para. #6). 

The Church is incapable of being divided. Those who leave are not "other churches" because Christ founded only one Church. Nor are those sects "part" of the Church. They are groups of heretics and/or schismatics that have no right to exist and are a means of damnation. The True Church is not "divided" or "less unified" because some leave and call themselves "churches." As Pope Leo XIII taught: 

The Church of Christ, therefore, is one and the same for ever; those who leave it depart from the will and command of Christ, the Lord - leaving the path of salvation they enter on that of perdition. "Whosoever is separated from the Church is united to an adulteress. He has cut himself off from the promises of the Church, and he who leaves the Church of Christ cannot arrive at the rewards of Christ....He who observes not this unity observes not the law of God, holds not the faith of the Father and the Son, clings not to life and salvation" [S. Cyprianus, De Cath. Eccl. Unitate, n. 6]. (See Satis Cognitum, para. #5). 

2. The proper approach of ecumenism. Catholic ecumenism looks from a position of unity in possession, whereas false ecumenism looks for unity as not yet possessed. The false view looks for theories and means of obtaining unity, while true ecumenism aims to share a divinely-given unity which already exists. The primary question should not, therefore, be "How can unity be achieved?"--but rather "How did Christ will His Church to be one?" The answer is to be found in the words of Pope Leo XIII:

Wherefore Jesus Christ bade all men, present and future, follow Him as their leader and Saviour; and this, not merely as individuals, but as forming a society, organized and united in mind. In this way a duly constituted society should exist, formed out of the divided multitude of peoples, one in faith, one in end, one in the participation of the means adapted to the attainment of the end, and one as subject to one and the same authority. To this end He established in the Church all principles which necessarily tend to make organized human societies, and through which they attain the perfection proper to each. That is, in it (the Church), all who wished to be the sons of God by adoption might attain to the perfection demanded by their high calling, and might obtain salvation. The Church, therefore, as we have said, is man's guide to whatever pertains to Heaven. (See Satis Cognitum, para. #10). Therefore, unity is to be had by converting to the One True Church. This conversion must be individual, as corporate reunion is impossible on several grounds.

3. What is "corporate reunion"? Formal corporate reunion may be defined as that act whereby a society of baptized persons, professing the Integral Catholic Faith, enter the Church through a judicially authorized action of legitimate representatives (e.g. Eastern Schismatics who are allowed to retain the Byzantine Rite of Mass, and certain ecclesiastical customs). Material corporate reunion is the return to the Church by a group of people who receive no status like the Easterns. It's just like-minded people professing the Integral Catholic Faith. It is not "a Church joining the Catholic Church" in either case.

Heretical Conceptions of Corporate Reunion

 1. The "Branch Theory." The Church is a "tree with three branches:" the Catholic Church, Eastern Schismatics, and Anglicans because of a valid hierarchy and closeness of doctrine. This theory is CONDEMNED by the Holy Office in the decree Quod vos, and any idea of Anglicans having valid orders was rejected by Pope Leo XIII, who declared Anglican Orders "absolutely null and utterly void" in the Apostolic Constitution Apostolicae Curae of 1896. 

2. "Mutual recognition." According to this heresy, two religious bodies, acting as "sovereign states," provide for intercommunion while maintaining independence (such as agreements between the Old Catholic sect and the Anglican sect). This diametrically contradicts the dogma of the unicity of the Church as well as the absolute necessity of the Church for salvation. As such, it stands CONDEMNED.

3. Compromise. This heresy would agree on "certain fundamental doctrines" which must be accepted, and allowing members to accept or reject all other doctrines as "non-fundamental" and unnecessary to salvation. Pope Pius XI CONDEMNED this notion: " connection with things which must be believed, it is nowise licit to use that distinction which some have seen fit to introduce between those articles of faith which are fundamental and those which are not fundamental, as they say, as if the former are to be accepted by all, while the latter may be left to the free assent of the faithful: for the supernatural virtue of faith has a formal cause, namely the authority of God revealing, and this is patient of no such distinction. For this reason it is that all who are truly Christ's believe, for example, the Conception of the Mother of God without stain of original sin with the same faith as they believe the mystery of the August Trinity, and the Incarnation of our Lord just as they do the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, according to the sense in which it was defined by the Ecumenical Council of the Vatican." (See Mortalium Animos, para. #9). 

Of interest, theologian Hanahoe singles out censured Modernist theologian, Fr.Yves Congar for promoting another false concept of "unity." He quotes Congar, "We cannot say that any dissident Christian body whatever is a member of Una Ecclesia. Nevertheless, it would seem to the present writer that the various dissident Christian bodies, each in a varying degree, may be regarded in some fashion as elements of the Church." (See Catholic Ecumenism, pg. 101; Emphasis in the original). In response to Congar, theologian Hanahoe writes, "There is no justification to be found in papal documents for these declarations...The evidence as to what constitutes a person as a member of the Church is unequivocal and definite." (Ibid; Emphasis mine). 
We see clearly that the "elements theory" of "participating in the Church" by various degrees according to the amount of "elements" a sect possesses, was CONDEMNED. Just eleven years later (1964), Vatican II would adopt this condemned and heretical theory in Lumen Gentium. Who were the periti (i.e., "theological experts") commissioned by Montini (Paul VI) to draw up that document?  Arch-heretics Gerard Phillips, Karl Rahner, Jean Danielou and Yves Congar.

4. Summation of Catholic Ecumenism. For a whole false sect to be swept into the One True Church by an act of its leaders is inconceivable for the most part. The Church has too high a regard for the bonds of membership which She communicates to those converted to Her; She has too great a respect for the dignity and intelligence involved in the freedom of the act of Faith. Ecumenism must be by the individuals submitting, fully and without reservation to the One True Church of Christ. In the words of the Instruction of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office (December 20, 1949) regarding Catholic Ecumenists:"The whole and entire body of Catholic doctrine is, therefore, to be proposed and explained. Nothing embraced in the Catholic truth concerning the true nature and means of justification, the constitution of the Church, the Roman Pontiff's primacy of jurisdiction and the only real union effectuated by a return of dissidents to the One True Church, must be passed over in silence or cloaked in ambiguous language...All this must be truly set forth clearly and intelligibly for the double reason that they are really seeking the truth and that outside the truth no true union can ever be attained."

You have just read the true teaching on Catholic Ecumenism, and the heretical non-Catholic teaching which was always condemned. I'm going to conclude this post with a few quotes from official Vatican II documents, and statements of the post-Vatican II "popes." Ask yourself, "Is this true or false ecumenism being taught?" No commentary from me will be necessary.

"Pope" John Paul II: "The elements of this already-given Church exist, found in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other Communities, where certain features of the Christian mystery have at times been more effectively emphasized. Ecumenism is directed precisely to making the partial communion existing between Christians grow towards full communion in truth and charity." (See Ut Unam Sint, para. #14). 

Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, para. #15: "The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter."

Vatican II, Unitatis Redintegratio, para. #3: "It follows that the separated Churches [sic] and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church." 

"Pope" John Paul II: "Christ's Mystical Body is not exclusively identified with the Catholic Church." (See L'Osservatore Romano, May 6, 1980).

"Pope" Francis: "I believe in God - not in a Catholic God; there is no Catholic God."

And therefore, "Proselytism is solemn nonsense."


  1. "And therefore,Proselytism is solemn nonsense."

    This is exactly why our Civilization is imploding.

    People cuss & complain on millennials and older adults who practice sorcery yet Trad-Catholics are the last ones who do any type of evangelisation.

    You can't expect society to practice a Religion and lifestyle that's never been explained to them.


    1. Andrew,
      Yes, Traditionalists must do more to make converts. There’s more in-fighting than proselytizing!

      God Bless,


    2. Its impossible to teach someone the Catholic faith and tell them to ignore the current Pope and the last Council.

    3. Tom,
      Not true. When someone understands the Faith, the rejection of Vatican II and Bergoglio becomes axiomatic.

      God Bless,


    4. Oh I agree with you, I was trying to illustrate the point why most traditionalist cannot properly evangelize since if they are RRers, they have a distorted concept of the Papacy. This is why when I left the NO world I could not buy into the SSPX position since they could not give me a coherent position vis a vis the papacy and the NO sect. Abp Lefebrve himself held several different positions in his lifetime.

    5. Tom,
      Thanks for the clarification! We are indeed on the same page!


    6. A few years ago, I came across a video on the Dimond’s website regarding evangelization. The Dimond’s claim that if you do not evangelize that you will go to hell. However, the Dimond’s claim a lot of things.

    7. Joann,
      The Dimonds do claim much—most of which is either misleading or false. Rarely do they clearly define terms. We have a duty to pray for the conversion of the non-Catholics and for “poor sinners” as Our Lady asked. It is not mortally sinful to not specifically do this. We have a serious obligation to stand up for the Faith when asked about it or confronted about it. In this time of the Great Apostasy we have a duty to try and make as many aware of the Faith as we can given our circumstances in life.

      However, to state without qualification that if “you don’t evangelize you go to Hell,” is a false and dangerous statement.

      God Bless,


  2. On the point! What else is there to say?

  3. Introibo ad altare Dei:
    Very good article!
    The church is uncapable of being divided. What happens, for example, with R&R?. Every day i am becoming more disgusted with those lads.

    1. It’s a schizophrenic group that attempts to preserve the Faith through contradictory propositions. How anyone could read this and not see the truth is astounding. It’s harder each day to maintain their position in good faith. The Vatican II sect is not the Roman Catholic Church. Period.

      God Bless,


  4. Yes, that s rigth, R&R would have good intentions, but they position is ridiculous. I can imagine a novus ordo deciding to stay in VII sect because of the contradictions of those people.

    They really need to become sedevacantists or sedeprivationist if they care about the Church, without getting upset about novus ordo pope´s fellings.

    We should pray for them.

    1. You Sedevacantists have enough of your own gaping holes to patch before worrying about the Catholics who hold the R & R position.

    2. And what might those “holes” be?


    3. I wonder where Anon 6:33 thinks sedevacantists come from. It is precisely from all the "holes" that exist in the R&R camp that leads many R&Rers to eventually conclude that the conciliar popes could not have been popes at all.

    4. Tom,
      I couldn’t have said it better!


  5. Anon 6:33:
    Excuse me, but if you want to help we Sedevacantists to fill our holes, why don´t you tell us what are those holes?
    We don´t have Fellay, we don´t have Williamson. In R&R blogs i know there is a lot of fight between FSSPX and SO-FSSPX.
    If you say that the Church can be manipulated by heretics, then gates of hell have winned. This is impossible.
    ¡You don´t even respect Francis!. You need to recognize that recognizing you can´t resist.
    For Greater Glory of God.

  6. No ecumenical dialogue for Pope St. Pius V:

  7. The Vatican II sect now wants to beatify and canonize John Paul II’s parents!! The Vatican II sect just can’t get enough of JP II and his coexist and global one world order agenda. art=00370

    1. Joann,
      Thanks for the article! It was incredible to read how the very Apostate who “canonized” more “saints” than in all of history has his sect considering “canonizing” his parents.

      They are lauded for the same Catholic Faith and practices their son destroyed. To be fair, we can’t blame Wojtyla’s parents for his many and grievous sins, anymore than we can blame Stalin’s parents for the atrocities he perpetrated. His parents may be in Heaven, but their is no pope to canonize them, and I see nothing that makes their lives especially worthy of emulation. As you stated, they must make everything associated with Wojtyla “holy” and thereby “canonize” his evil agenda.

      Wojtyla’s parents may be in Heaven, but I’m not hopeful at all about his fate.

      God Bless,


  8. The problem I see with Sedevacatnism is that it makes papal infallibility meaningless. It also relies on a logical fallacy known as the No True Scotsman, although in this case it would more appropriately be called, No True Pope...

    1. There’s no fallacious reasoning, and Sedevacantism actually saves Infallibility from being meaningless. How could a pope contradict the infallible teaching of the past? This is objective not subjective. The loss of office by profession of heresy (as a private teacher) is Catholic teaching.


    2. Sedevacantism does not "save" infallibility. Sedevacantists haven't had an actual Church since the 1950s! So much for infallibility and a whole bunch of other things integral to Roman Catholicism. All Sedevacantism does is cloak a defection under a misnomer "papal interregnum."

      Anon 4:12 is on the money. I would only change his wording to say that Sedevacantism makes the Papacy meaningless, not just infallibility.

    3. Anonymous7:35

      You’re ignorant of what the Church teaches about the papacy. First, some preliminary remarks about the papacy are in order. According to theologian Dorsch, "The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, OR EVEN FOR MANY YEARS, from remaining deprived of her head. [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet]. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state.…
      Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body.… Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way — that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not…

      For this reason, the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has died — for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate.

      These rights are an essential and necessary element of the Church. With them, moreover, the Primacy then continues, at least morally. The perennial physical presence of the person of the head, however, [perennitas autem physica personis principis] is not so strictly necessary." (de Ecclesia 2:196–7; Emphasis mine)

      Second, according to theologian Salaverri, instead of being a "primary foundation… without which the Church could not exist," the pope is a "secondary foundation," "ministerial," who exercises his power as someone else’s (Christ’s) representative. (See De Ecclesia 1:448)

      Let's not forget the Great Apostasy foretold in the Bible, and taught by the Church. According to theologian Berry, "The prophesies of the Apocalypse show that Satan will imitate the Church of Christ to deceive mankind; he will set up a church of Satan in opposition of the Church of Christ. Antichrist will assume the role of Messias; his prophet will act the part of pope, and there will be imitations of the Sacraments of the Church. There will also be lying wonders in imitation of the miracles wrought in the Church." (See Berry, The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise , [1927], pg.119)

      See also my response to anonymous7:03 below.


    4. I am ignorant of what the Church teaches on the papacy? Are you sure about that? If I decide to refute your Ferraraesque lawyer-speak will you post it or will my comments disappear into Introibo's private limbo file?

    5. I’m not sure exactly what you wish to refute as Christopher Ferrara is R&R and I’m Sedevacantist.

      I have never run from a debate. First, you must clearly state the resolution. Second, the rules must be agreed upon. Third, I suggest an outside source. For example, write and post your arguments on the web for all to see. I can then respond via a post to my blog, in the comments, or in an independent forum such as


  9. "Sedevacantism actually saves Infallibility from being meaningless"

    Papal infallibility would essentially be meaningless if you simply asserted that every pope who taught heresy under the O&U magistierum wasn't a true pope in the first place.

    A couple other issues with Sedevacatnism:

    (1) Only a "competent authority" (can. 194) can declare a pope guilty of formal heresy and removed from office. Indeed, it has never been defined who, if anyone, would constitute such an authority in the case of the Pope. In any event, he should at least have the right of a trial, such as is granted to any cleric. If submission to the Pope depended on mere private judgment, this ecclesiology would be essentially Protestant.(Ironically, the "Si Papa" canon in Gratian, now invoked by traditionalists, was originally used by Protestants to justify non-submission to the Pope.) Even in cases of inadvertent error, i.e., material heresy, it's for the cardinals and bishops to admonish the Pope. Only if he should obstinately persist in teaching error after correction would he be a formal heretic.

    (2) The Pope is hardly an effective source of unity if others, disagreeing with his ex cathedra doctrine, can declare him a heretic, thereby nullifying his teaching.

    1. Wrong on all counts. No pope ever has or can teach heresy. Period. You then confuse heresy as a SIN and A CANONICAL CRIME.
      We look at things either—-

      1. Moral: Heresy as a sin (peccatum) against divine law.

      2. Canonical: Heresy as a crime (delictum) against canon law.

      The moral/canonical distinction is easy to grasp by applying it to abortion, which likewise can be considered under the same two aspects:

      1. Moral: Sin against the 5th Commandment that results in the loss of sanctifying grace.

      2. Canonical: Crime against canon 2350.1 of the Code of Canon Law that results in automatic excommunication.

      Like all the R&R, you seem to think it is the second aspect of heresy — heresy as a crime against canon law — that renders a public heretic incapable of becoming a true pope or that automatically strips him of his office if he falls into heresy after has already been elected to it.

      Hence, your incorrect assertion about “admonishing” and “competent authorities” to depose a pope.

      It is not heresy in the second sense (crime against canon law), but heresy in the first sense (a sin against divine law) that prevents a public heretic from becoming or remaining pope. This is clear from the teaching of pre-Vatican II canonists like Coronata:

      “III. Appointment to the office of the Primacy [i.e. papacy]. 1. What is required by divine law for this appointment: … Also required for validity is that the appointment be of a member of the Church. Heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are therefore excluded.”…

      “2. Loss of office of the Roman Pontiff. This can occur in various ways: … c) Notorious heresy. …“If indeed such a situation would happen, he [the Roman Pontiff] would, by divine law, fall from office without any sentence, indeed, without even a declaratory one.” (Institutiones Iuris Canonici [Rome: Marietti 1950] 1:312, 316).

      Divine law removes the heretical pope or in the case of Bergoglio, prevents a heretic from becoming pope. One need not therefore look to all the criteria laid down for crimes against canon law.

      To attempt to do so in the case of a pope, moreover, is to commit a “category error” — to ascribe to something a property it could not possibly have. A pope, as Supreme Legislator, is above canon law, and therefore cannot commit a crime against it, so no evil act he commits can be properly called a “crime.” It can only be called a sin, because he is subject to the divine law alone.

      The pope cannot be tried or deposed by any earthly authority. He falls from the pontificate by his SIN. No one can convict an abortion doctor as a murderer in the United States since the Supreme Court allowed the slaughter of the innocents. That doesn’t mean we can’t (Indeed we MUST) recognize him as such in the MORAL ORDER for the SIN OF MURDER.

      Your second point, misses the mark completely. We do not “disagree with his ex cathedra doctrine,” rather by claiming e.g. “There is no Catholic God,” he denies that the Catholic Church is the Mystical Body Of Christ. Read what I wrote above. If what Vatican II and the post-V2 “popes” said is true, then all Catholicism pre-V2 was FALSE. The ecclesiology is mutually exclusive. That renders the pope little more than the President Of the Mormon Sect, who can change doctrines because “God changed His mind.”


    2. To my readers:
      As someone pointed out, some of the material above was from the work of Fr Cekada, some my own, some from the oft quoted theologians. I’ve been doing this so long I sometimes forget to give attribution to the source. My response directly above was from a comment I made awhile back with Fr. Cekada credited for his contribution. Since I didn’t use all of what I wrote, I left out the attribution for pointing out the distinction between delicit and peccatum. I will be more careful even when responding to the same old canards late at night as I always strive for perfect citations!!

      Mea culpa,


    3. To further clarify I’m only referring to my comment at 7:50 above.