Book Review: From Ecumenism to Silent Apostasy

Title: From Ecumenism to Silent Apostasy
Author: the Society of St. Pius X
Publisher: distributed by SSPX American District House, no imprint visible
Excellence: 3 stars
Why: Asks some deeply relevant and troubling questions, but doesn't fully address the consequences of answers in the negative
Summary in a Sentence: John Paul II and Benedict XVI are accused of teaching/holding/promoting heretical beliefs

This is a distressing work, because its research only seems to bring to the fore more questions for which the average Catholic has no answers.

From one of my readers:

**********

Stephen

I noticed on your blogspot the SSPX book From Ecumenism To Silent Apostasy and knowing that the SSPX often has their stuff in PDF format on the web, I Googled it and downloaded the text. I read it in about twenty minutes-this is some hard-hitting stuff. I don't know how I missed this quote in the past:

“Anyone who, even of only one point, refuses to really assent to the truths divinely revealed renounces entirely the faith, because he refuses to submit himself to God as the Sovereign Truth, the very motif of the faith.” Leo XIII, Encyclical Satis Cognitum

This quote, coupled with the numerous quotes from Ut Unum Sint, really troubles me: how can one assert that Pope John Paul II or for that matter from all of his pre-pontifical writings Pope Benedict XVI are Catholic?

**********

If this is the question asked by a young man who attends an SSPX-friendly independent chapel and is not known for sedevacantist leanings of any kind, you can well imagine how deeply this pamphlet delves into troubling areas within the space of 35 pages.

The pamphlet begins:

The twenty-fifth anniversary of the election of Pope John Paul II (2003) is an occasion to reflect upon the fundamental orientation that the Pope has given to his pontificate. In the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council, he was wished to place his pontificate under the sign of unity: "The restoration of unity of all Christians was one of the principal purposes of the Second Vatican Council (cf. Unitatis Redintegratio, Sec. 1) and since my election I have formally committed myself to promote and execute its norms and its orientations, considering it as my primordial duty." (Allocution, 1978, full citation in the text) For the Pope, this "restoration of the unity of Christians" is but one step towards a greater unity, that of the whole human family: "The unity of Christians is open to a unity ever more vast, that of all humanity" (Angelus address, 1982, full citation in the text) (p. 1)

Indeed, with this predicate,

"In the Holy Spirit, each person and all peoples have become, by the Cross and resurrection of Christ, children of God, participants in the divine nature and heirs of eternal life" (Message to the Peoples of Asia, 1981, full citation in the text) (p. 6).

Hence,

"The contours of the Church of Christ are fairly ill-defined as they overflow the visible limits of the Catholic Church" (Commentary on Unitatis Redintegratio, Section 3, full citation in the text) (p. 7).

and

"the Church of Christ is an interior reality" (Commentary on Lumen Gentium, Sec 7, 8) (p. 7).

The commentary on this footnote goes further:

"This theory of the interiority of the Church is so widespread that cardinals as different as J. Ratzinger and W. Kasper refer to it as evident: 'the Church awakens in souls': this sentence of Guardini has been nurtured for a long time. In fact it shows that the Church has been finally recognized and lived as something interior, which does not exist as some sort of institution facing us, but rather living in ourselves" (footnote #11, p. 7).

It is fascinating to pause here and note that this work was done in 2003, when the widespread idea was that "Kasper is a heretic" was a sentence Ratzinger mentioned to JPII, hence the assertion "cardinals as different" as Ratzinger and Kasper. The fact that Kasper has been promoted under BXVI's reign should say something quite interesting on a number of levels. Not the least of which that perhaps they are not so different at all.

Continuing reading footnotes, the reader will find this further consequent of this thinking:

"God of boundless majesty...This God is professed in silence by the Trappist or the Camaldolite. It is to him that the desert Bedouin turns at his hour for prayer. And perhaps the Buddhist too, wrapt in contemplation as he purifies his thought, preparing the way to Nirvana. God is his absolute transcendence" (p. 8).

Who wrote this? Teilhard, Lammenais, de Lubac? No. Karol Wojtyla in 1979, in The Sign of Contradiction, pages 16 and 17. And yet, can anyone truly be shocked?

Wojtyla would continue this thinking as JPII:

"Perhaps the most convincing form of ecumenism is the ecumenism of the saints and martyrs. The communio sanctorum speaks louder than the things which divide us" (Tertio Millenio Adveniente, Sec. 37) (p. 10).

Living in modern America, such double-speak is standard fare for politicians, but from the man who is supposed to be on the throne of Peter it becomes beyond incomprehensible. What "ecumenism of the saints" is he speaking of? You mean where they stood up for the faith instead of kissing the Koran? Where they gave their blood rather than pray publicly with false religions? Indeed, all Catholics, including JPII (of infelicitous memory), could learn from the so-called "ecumenism of the saints" - the ecumenism that calls for conversion rather than perseverance in error.

The writers go on:

Ecumenism is also an "exchange of gifts" (Lumen Gentium, Sec 13, Ut Unum Sint, Sec 28) between the Churches: "Communion is made fruitful by the exchange of gifts between the Churches insofar as they complement each other" (Ut Unum Sint, Sec 57) (p. 11).

In such a fantasy world, this quote makes sense:

"Today, the two sister Churches of East and West understand that without a mutual acceptance of the profound reasons underlying their own understanding of what characterizes each of them, and without a reciprocal giving of the treasures of insight that they bear, the Church of Christ cannot manifest the full maturity of the form she received in the beginning, in the Upper Room" (Allocution in the Basilica of St. Nicolas of Bari, 1984) (p. 11).

The Church of Christ is now handicapped and hindered, and unable to reach her "full maturity" because she is not in communion with schismatics. Interesting theory. But not a Catholic one. Certainly not one any priest or nun ever taught me growing up. But perhaps I missed something.

I do remember studying about Nestorius, the man who died in heresy, his tongue literally consumed by worms, because he insisted that Mary was Christokos, not Theotokos because he insisted on two persons in Christ. Blaspheming both Our Lord and Our Lady, and needing the Council of Ephesus to condemn him, seems pretty clear, doesn't it? Not to JPII.

In his Common Christological Declaration between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East (today's inheritors of Nestorius), he says "the divisions brought about in this way were due in large part to misunderstandings" (p. 13). Hmm. Jesus Christ is God and has one Divine Person. Nestorius denied this. Misunderstanding? How about a nomination for understatement of the millenia?

Ephesus (and the dignity and majesty of Our Lord and Our Lady) was swept under the rug at this lovefest (put your surprise face on).

However, none of the quotes so far are as stunning as this assertion by the writers on page 15:

"The ecumenical practice of this pontificate is based entirely upon the distinction between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church. This division permist the assertion that, if the visible communion has been injured by ecclesiastical divisions, the communion of saints, considered as the sharing of spiritual goods in a common union with Christ, remains unbroken. However, this affirmation is not compatible with the Catholic faith" (p. 15).

How does a Catholic who desires to be saved respond to such an assertion? What are the consequences? The text continues:

"Consequently, the proposition of Cardinal Kasper which states: "The true nature of the Church - the Church in so far as it is the Body of Christ - is hidden and can only be grasped by the faith" (op. cit. available in text) is certainly heretical" (p. 16)

and

"We reject [uniatism] (the practice of converting Orthodox to Catholicism -s.) as a method for the search for unity...Pastoral activity in the Cahtolic Church, Latin as well as Oriental, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other" (Declaration of the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Cahtolic church and the Orthodox Church, June 23, 1993) (p. 30, emphasis mine).

!!!

and

"We cannot throw overboard that which has carried and held us up until now, that which our predecessors have lived, often in difficult circumstances, nor can we ask this of our brothers and sisters of Protestantism and Orthodoxy. Neither they nor we can become unfaithful" (The Common Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification: A Reason for Hope, Conference given by W. Kasper, full citation in text, emphasis mine) (p. 31).

!!!!!!

The Catholic answer (regarding the true nature of the Church) deserves to be quoted at length:

"The affirmation that 'many elements of sanctification and truth are found outside the confines [of the Church]' (Lumen Gentium, Sec 8) is equivocal. This proposition implies in effect that the means of salvation materially present in the separated Communities possess a sanctifying power. However, such an assumption calls for certain distinctions. Among the elements present in other religions, those which do not require a specific disposition on the part of the subject - the baptism of a child, for instance - are indeed salutary in the sense that they efficaciously produce grace in the sould of the one baptized, who thereby becomes a full member of the Catholic Church until he has attained the age of reason (Singulari Nobis, DS 2566-2568). As for the other elements, those that require a proper disposition on the part of the subject in order to be efficacious, one must affirm that they are salutary only in the measure in which the subject is already a member of the Church by his implicit desire" (p. 21).

And

"To the extent that this assertion of the Council (Vatican II) throws doubt upon the affirmation that the Catholic Church is the unique possesor of the means of salvation, it approaches heresy: if, by according a 'significance and importance in the mystery of salvation' (Unitatis Redintegratio, Sec 3) to these Churches, it grants them a quasi-legitimacy - implied by the expression "sister Churches" (Ratzinger, Commentary on Lumen Gentium, full citation in text) - this assertion is opposed to the Catholic doctrine because it denies the unicity of the Catholic Church" (p. 22).

"Ecumenism could only be likened to the "branch theory" (Letter of the Holy Office to the Bishops of England, 1864 DS 2885-2886) condemned by the Magisterium: its 'foundation...is of such a nature that it makes the divine establishment of the Church of no consequence,' and its prayer for unity, 'polluted and infected as much as possible with heresy, can in no way be tolerated'" (Ibid. DS 2886-2887) (p. 23).

And

"Aside from the fact that in depends on heterodox theses, ecumenism is harmful for souls because it relativizes the Catholic faith indispensible for salvation, and it turns men away from the Catholic Church, the sole ark of salvation...Ecumenical dialogue dissumulates the heretic's sin against the faith - the formal reason for the rupture - in order to call attention to a sin against charity, imputed indiscriminately to the heretic and to the child of the Church. It ultimately denies the sin against the faith that constitutes heresy" (p. 25, emphasis in original).

Given all of these stunning quotes and conclusions, the writers then proceed to a wholly unsatisfactory conclusion:

"Considered from a pastoral aspect, we are forced to conclude that the ecumenism of the last decades leads Catholics to a "silent apostasy" and dissuades non-Catholics from entering into the unique ark of salvation. One must therefore deplore 'the impiety of those who close to men the gates of the kingdom of heaven' (Full citation in text). Under the guise of a search for unity, ecumenism disperses the flock; it does not carry the mark of Christ, but that of the divider par excellence" (p. 33)

The dictionary says "deplore" means "express or feel strong disapproval of." Is this all we are supposed to do as Catholics after being presented with all this evidence? A glorified "harumph"?

What do the saints say? One does not have to look far, their thoughts are provided in the text by the writers who have furnished us with all the evidence up to this point:

St. Ambrose, Epistle 11 ad imperatores:

"from [the chair of Peter] the rights of the venerable communion are extended to all" (p. 19)

St. Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiae:

"He who deserts the Church will vainly believe that he is in the Church" (p. 19)

St. Jerome, Epistle 51 ad Damasum

"Whoever eats of the lamb and is not a member of the Church, has profaned" (p. 19).

St. Augustine, De Baptismo contra Donatistas:

"That which belongs to you, is your impiety in separating yourselves from us; for if, in all other things, you think and you possess the truth, yet in perservering in your separation...you lack that which lacks in him who has not charity" (p. 19).

So, why should we solely "deplore"? Indeed, the Church's very foundations are being eaten away, both under the previous reign of JPII, of infelicitous memory, and now under BXVI, as by the quotations cited show he shares in this ambiguity and confusion. It seems the SSPX is uniquely positioned to truly bring these problems out into a real debate, and yet, this cancer which is eating away at the Church and costing people their souls is simply to be "deplored"?

Indeed, we deplore a complacency that does not take a more realistic, Catholic, and corrective attitude to these matters. We are intensely grateful to the writers of this work for collecting all of this evidence, but we ask, if these issues truly comprise heresy, perhaps the question at the end of the pamphlet should be, what are the consequences of heresy, for any Catholic, regardless of rank or dignity? In the temporal sphere, a man acting contrary to the laws of the Church was removed by the Church authorities so that their temporal good would not be affected. What of the spiritual good of the faithful imprisoned by hirelings?