Ecumenism: The Betrayal of the Martyrs and the Missionaries

Today is the start of Advent, and I am looking forward to Christmas and all that it represents. However at Mass this morning my mind wandered and I had an attack of Thygoism. I became depressed at the state of the Church, of the pervasiveness of error amongst its people, including so many Priests and Bishops. Not the very holy Priest who said the Mass I attended, or my local Bishop, but so many of the others in this country.

Some of the errors are so insidious, and so normative now, that it is very difficult to explain to confused Catholics why these things are errors. A good example is ecumenism. It is just accepted now with no understanding of what it is and how it must be interpreted. But no one warns of the dangers any more.

All I can do is quote a courageous Bishop who dared to write the following after the disaster that was the Second Vatican Council. And these words are also an excellent summary of baptism by desire, a topic which is necessary in any serious discussion about ecumenism:

In this confusion of ideas (in which some Catholics now seem to be quite at ease), there is a tendency especially dangerous to the Faith, the more so because it masquerades as charity. The word which appeared in 1927 during a congress held at Lausanne, Switzerland, would have put Catholics on their guard if they had consulted their dictionaries. "Ecumenism: a movement toward reunion of all Christian churches in a single church." Now it is clear that we cannot combine contradictory principles. We cannot unite truth and error so as to form one thing, except by adopting the error and rejecting all or part of the truth. Ecumenism is self condemnatory.

... Nowadays all religions have the Freedom of the City within the Church. A French cardinal celebrated Mass in the presence of some Tibetan monks, dressed in their ceremonial robes and seated in the front row, bowing before them while a commentator announced: "The bonzes share with us in the Eucharistic celebration". In a church at Rennes, worship of Buddha was celebrated. In Italy twenty monks were solemnly initiated into Zen by a Buddhist.

I could cite endless examples of such syncretism going on around us. We see associations developing, movements being born which always seem to find an ecclesiastic as leader who wants to join in the quest to "blend all spiritualities in love".

... What conclusion can be drawn from all this by a Catholic who sees Church authorities condoning such scandalous ceremonies? If all religions are equal value, he could very well work out his salvation with Buddhists or Protestants. He is running the risk of losing faith in the true Church. This in fact is what is suggested to him. They want to submit the Church to natural law; they want to put it on the same footing with other religions. They refuse to say -even priests, seminarists and seminary professors -that the Catholic Church is the only Church, that she possesses the truth, that she alone is able to lead men to salvation through Jesus Christ. "The Church is only a spiritual leaven within society, but the same as other religions; a bit more that the others, perhaps ... " They sometimes grant it a slight superiority, if you press them.

If this is the case, then the Church is merely useful; she is no longer indispensible. She is only one of the means of salvation.

We must say it clearly: such a concept is radically opposed to Catholic dogma. The Church is the one ark of salvation, and we must not be afraid to affirm it. You have often heard it said, "Outside the Church there is no salvation" -a dictum which offends contemporary minds. It is easy to believe that this doctrine is no longer in effect, that it has been dropped. It seems excessively severe.

Yet nothing, in fact, has changed; nothing can be changed in this area. Our Lord did not found a number of churches: He founded only One. There is only one Cross by which we can be saved, and that Cross has been given to the Catholic Church. It has not been given to others. To His Church, His mystical bride, Christ has given all graces. No grace in the world, no grace in the history of humanity is distributed except through her.

Does that mean that no Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved? No, it would be a second error to think that. Those who cry for intolerance in interpreting St. Cyprian's formula, "Outside the Church there is no salvation," also reject the Creed, "I confess one baptism for the remission of sins", and are insufficiently instructed as to what baptism is. There are three ways of receiving it: the baptism of water; the baptism of blood (that of the martyrs who confessed their faith while still catechumens) and baptism of desire.

Baptism of desire can be explicit. Many times in Africa I heard one of our catechumens say to me, "Father, baptise me straightaway because if I die before you come again, I shall go to hell". I told him, "No, if you have no mortal sin on your conscience and if you desire baptism, then you already have the grace in you" .

The doctrine of the Church also recognises implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.

The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God. As priests we must state the truth.

But at the cost of what difficulties do people in those countries where Christianity has not penetrated come to receive baptism by desire! Error is an obstacle to the Holy Ghost. This explains why the Church has always sent missionaries into all countries of the world, why thousands of them have suffered martyrdom. If salvation can be found in any religion, why cross the seas, why subject oneself to unhealthy climates, to a harsh life, to sickness and an early death? From the martyrdom of St. Stephen onwards (the first to give his life for Christ, and for this reason his feast is the day after Christmas), the Apostles set out to spread the Good News throughout the Mediterranean countries. Would they have done this if one could be saved by worshipping Cybele or by the mysteries of Eleusis? Why did Our Lord say to them, "Go and preach the Gospel to all nations"?

In our modern Church you never hear these warnings about ecumenism. The ecumenism embraced by the majority of ignorant Catholics is a betrayal of the martyrs, of missionaries, and of Our Lord.

I suppose my wandering mind has led me to St Stephen, and it is OK to think of this Saint at the start of Advent.

Comments

[Paul]

There have been no gains, only losses, and considerable ones at that.

Yes.

[Thygocanberra]

Was the bishop Marcel Lefevre?

[Thygocanberra]

Paul is fired up.
I better read this and respond sensibly.

I can guess I will be very much in agreement. The policy of 'aggiornamento' has in reality been one of appeasement, and the much touted gains have been illusory at best. The world still hates the Church and always will.