Caritatis Studium and Mortalium Animos

Since Mortalium Animos is routinely cited by the sede-spleenists and rad-trads as a Magisterial condemnation against any form of ecumenism which allegedly has as its foundation (by default) “that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy”, I think its time that we examine precisely what Pope Pius IX was referring to, and what the Church continues to teach, which are in no way opposed (while recognizing that certain ecumenical practices have changed as a result of a new orientation, or approach).

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos:

2. A similar object is aimed at by some, in those matters which concern the New Law promulgated by Christ our Lord. For since they hold it for certain that men destitute of all religious sense are very rarely to be found, they seem to have founded on that belief a hope that the nations, although they differ among themselves in certain religious matters, will without much difficulty come to agree as brethren in professing certain doctrines, which form as it were a common basis of the spiritual life. For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little, turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.

3. But some are more easily deceived by the outward appearance of good when there is question of fostering unity among all Christians.

4. Is it not right, it is often repeated, indeed, even consonant with duty, that all who invoke the name of Christ should abstain from mutual reproaches and at long last be united in mutual charity? Who would dare to say that he loved Christ, unless he worked with all his might to carry out the desires of Him, Who asked His Father that His disciples might be "one." […] And did not the same Christ will that His disciples should be marked out and distinguished from others by this characteristic, namely that they loved one another: "By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another"? All Christians, they add, should be as "one": for then they would be much more powerful in driving out the pest of irreligion, which like a serpent daily creeps further and becomes more widely spread, and prepares to rob the Gospel of its strength. These things and others that class of men who are known as pan-Christians continually repeat and amplify; and these men, so far from being quite few and scattered, have increased to the dimensions of an entire class, and have grouped themselves into widely spread societies, most of which are directed by non-Catholics, although they are imbued with varying doctrines concerning the things of faith. This undertaking is so actively promoted as in many places to win for itself the adhesion of a number of citizens, and it even takes possession of the minds of very many Catholics and allures them with the hope of bringing about such a union as would be agreeable to the desires of Holy Mother Church, who has indeed nothing more at heart than to recall her erring sons and to lead them back to her bosom. But in reality beneath these enticing words and blandishments lies hid a most grave error, by which the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed.

The attempts that “can nowise be approved by Catholics” are those with the objective of religious syncretism, indifferentism and pluralism. The opinion “which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy” is not false because it cannot be true in another sense, it is false because it is used by the syncretists as the foundation for pushing their religious pluralism that does not seek unity in the one Church established by our Lord, but only a false and incomplete unity in professing certain common doctrines.

In other words, the objectives of the syncretists and the ecumenism of the Catholic Church are not the same, and any and all ecumenical efforts taken on by Catholics can only be done under the auspices and guidance of the Church, and not by the “one-world-religion” syncretists.

For example, Pope Leo XIII’s Encyclical Epistle Caritatis Studium, “On The Church In Scotland”, is addressed to the clergy and faithful of Scotland and praises the good will of Calvinists of the John Knox persuasion who seek and strive to follow God … and clearly are NOT numbered among the body of the Catholic faithful, and do not worship God rightly:

The ardent charity which renders Us solicitous of Our separated brethren, in no wise permits Us to cease Our efforts to bring back to the embrace of the Good Shepherd those whom manifold error causes to stand aloof from the one Fold of Christ. Day after day We deplore more deeply the unhappy lot of those who are deprived of the fullness of the Christian Faith. Wherefore moved by the sense of the responsibility which Our most sacred office entails, and by the spirit and grace of the most loving Saviour of men, Whom We unworthily represent, We are constantly imploring them to agree at last to restore together with Us the communion of the one and the same faith.

Great praise is due to the Scottish nation, as a whole, that they have always shown reverence and love for the Inspired Writings. They cannot therefore be unwilling to listen to a few words which in Our affection We would address to them on this subject with a view to their eternal welfare; since We find that in revering the Sacred Scriptures, they are in agreement with the Catholic Church. Why then should this not be the starting-point for a return to unity?

Continuing:

We know that many of the Scottish people, who do not agree with us in faith, sincerely love the name of Christ, and strive to ascertain His doctrine and to imitate His most holy example. But how can they obtain what they are striving for, if they do not allow themselves to be taught heavenly things in the way prescribed by Jesus Christ Himself; if they do not give heed to the Church whose precepts they are commanded to obey by the Author of faith as if they were His own: "He who heareth you heareth me; he who despiseth you despiseth me"; if they do not seek the nourishment of their souls, and the sustenance of all virtue, from him whom the Supreme Pastor of souls made His vicegerent, to whom He confided the care of the universal Church? In the meantime We are resolved not to fail in doing Our share, and especially to be constant in fervent prayer, that God may move their minds to what is good, and vouchsafe to impart to them the most powerful impulses of His grace. May the Divine clemency, thus earnestly implored by Us, grant to the Church that supreme consolation of speedily embracing the whole Scottish people, restored to the faith of their forefathers "in spirit and in truth." What incalculable blessings would not accrue to them, if they were once more united to us?

Pardon me, but this sounds like Ecumenism 101, VCII style.

Lumen Gentium:

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. For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ.

Ut unum sint:

For the Catholic Church, then, the communion of Christians is none other than the manifestation in them of the grace by which God makes them sharers in his own communion, which is his eternal life. Christ's words "that they may be one" are thus his prayer to the Father that the Father's plan may be fully accomplished, in such a way that everyone may clearly see "what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things" (Eph 3:9). To believe in Christ means to desire unity; to desire unity means to desire the Church; to desire the Church means to desire the communion of grace which corresponds to the Father's plan from all eternity. Such is the meaning of Christ's prayer: "Ut unum sint".

14. All these elements bear within themselves a tendency towards unity, having their fullness in that unity. It is not a matter of adding together all the riches scattered throughout the various Christian Communities in order to arrive at a Church which God has in mind for the future. In accordance with the great Tradition, attested to by the Fathers of the East and of the West, the Catholic Church believes that in the Pentecost Event God has already manifested the Church in her eschatological reality, which he had prepared "from the time of Abel, the just one". This reality is something already given. Consequently we are even now in the last times. 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.

In summary (and again), the objectives of the syncretists and that of ecumenism (as articulated by VCII) are not the same, and such attempts of the syncretists “can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy".

Unfortunately, the "traditionalists" condemn the Church for the very "attempts" condemned by Pope Pius IX, because they say, "in reality beneath these enticing words and blandishments [of the "conciliar" Catholic Church] lies hid a most grave error, by which the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed."

"Traditionalists" who cannot draw the proper distinctions, or recognize the true context of a Magisterial directive? What else is new?

MRyan wrote:
In summary (and again), the objectives of the syncretists and that of ecumenism (as articulated by VCII) are not the same, and such attempts of the syncretists “can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy".

And yet several post Vatican II papal claimants have claimed that other false religions are "GOOD and PRAISEWORTHY" . Infact the wording from Vatican II itself esteems the religion of Islam. Benedict XVI is on record saying that the religion of Islam deserves the respect of Catholics and he points to Vatican II in making that comment.

If any of you would like to hear a debate between Robert Sungenis and Peter Dimond on this very subject of showing praise and esteem for false religions, then here is the link, http://catholicintl.com/index.php/component/content/article/73-vatican/358-robert-sungenis-vs-bro-peter-dimond

Missouri Mark wrote:

MRyan wrote:
In summary (and again), the objectives of the syncretists and that of ecumenism (as articulated by VCII) are not the same, and such attempts of the syncretists “can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy".

And yet several post Vatican II papal claimants have claimed that other false religions are "GOOD and PRAISEWORTHY" . Infact the wording from Vatican II itself esteems the religion of Islam. Benedict XVI is on record saying that the religion of Islam deserves the respect of Catholics and he points to Vatican II in making that comment.

If any of you would like to hear a debate between Robert Sungenis and Peter Dimond on this very subject of showing praise and esteem for false religions, then here is the link, http://catholicintl.com/index.php/component/content/article/73-vatican/358-robert-sungenis-vs-bro-peter-dimond

You have this uncanny ability to completely ignore the substance of an entire post, and then proceed as if you read nothing.

Just come out and say it; Pope Leo XIII should be condemned for "showing" affection, "praise and esteem for false religions", specifically, for "showing" affection, "praise and esteem for" the heretical Calvinists in the nation of Scotland for having "always shown reverence and love for the Inspired Writings"; who "sincerely love the name of Christ, and strive to ascertain His doctrine and to imitate His most holy example."

I mean Leo XIII even used their reverence for "the Sacred Scriptures" as a "starting-point for a return to unity".

But, I am not surprised by your remarks; I posted a thorough response to the case of Pope Honorius, and you act like you didn't even read it.

Whatever.

To the forum, twice I referred to Pope Pius XI as Pius IX ... oops.