The next primary error of the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II) that needs to be addressed is ecumenism. While religious freedom corresponds to the Freemasonic call for “liberty,” ecumenism corresponds to its call for “equality.” Equality of what? Equality of religions, of course.
In my prior essay on religious freedom, one could see how equality of religions found its way into the modernist notion of religious freedom, but Dignitatis Humanae mainly concerned itself with the response of civil governments to false religious beliefs and practices.
This essay on ecumenism will mainly focus on the Modernist novel conception set forth in Vatican II documents that religions other than Catholicism offer graces and valid alternative means for worshiping God that is pleasing to Him.
As typical when it comes to Modernist heresies, definitions of words get changed to make it appear Catholic when it is not. We will explore the modernist version of ecumenism in this essay. However, the reader should be aware that the word “ecumenism” comes from the Greek infinitive oikein meaning “to inhabit.” Traditionally, the term would be used when speaking of ecumenical councils, those general councils to which the bishops are convoked from the whole world (oikoumene) under the presidency of the Pope to address matters of faith or doctrine.[i]
A. Traditional Teaching on True Religion
When it comes to ecumenism, the key doctrine to be concerned with from a traditional point of view is Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, outside the Church there is no salvation. This doctrine is well established as the opinions of the Church Fathers demonstrate. I highlighted portions of these teachings that will be highly relevant to our discussion on Vatican II’s version of ecumenism.
“Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life… For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers.”[ii] (St. Iranaeus)
“Therefore it is the Catholic Church alone which retains true worship. This is the fountain of truth, this is the abode of the faith, this is the temple of God; into which if any one shall not enter, or from which if any shall go out, he is estranged from the hope of life and eternal salvation.”[iii] (Lactantius).
“No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honor, one can have the sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church.”[iv] (St. Augustine).
This teaching continued to be passed down through the ages into the twentieth century. Just to give the reader a favor, some additional quotes from a Council and the Popes over time:
“There is indeed one universal church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”[v] (Fourth Lateran Council)
“For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God.”[vi] (Pope Pius IX)
“Whosoever then should fix his attention and reflect on the situation in which the various religious societies find themselves [referring to Protestants], in discord with each other and separated from the Catholic Church, which, without interruption, since the time of Christ the Lord and his Apostles, through her legitimate sacred Pastors has always exercised, and still exercises, the divine power conferred upon her by the same Lord, he will easily have to be convinced that in none of these societies, or even in them as a whole, can in any way be recognized that one catholic Church which Christ the Lord built, established and willed to exist. Nor can they ever be said to be members and part of that Church as long as they remain visibly separated from Catholic unity.”[vii] (Pius IX).
“If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ – which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church – we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression ‘the Mystical Body of Christ’”.[viii] (Pius XII).
“Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed…It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.”[ix] (Pius XII)
“Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing. Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation.”[x] (Pius XII)
It is important to note Pope Pius IX’s point about the possibility that someone simply was never exposed to the true faith, such that their salvation may be possible if their ignorance is truly invincible.
While Modernists often rely on this valid point of doctrine to excuse those who refuse to accept the truths of the faith, invincible ignorance is not the issue with the error of ecumenism. Vatican II’s teaching on ecumenism does not rely on the invincible ignorance of those outside the Church in promoting their practice of false religions.
In sum, the Catholic Church has always made an effort to spread the Gospel and reach out to those of other religions, but always for the purpose of encouraging conversion to the one true faith—not to support others in worshiping false gods or rejecting Christ’s Church.
B. Vatican II on Ecumenism
Vatican II teaches something entirely different. The basis for these novel teachings can primarily be found (although not exclusively) in three Vatican II documents: Lumen Gentium, Unitatis Redintegratio, and Nostra Aetate.
1. Lumen Gentium
Lumen Gentium provides the foundational error from which all other errors related to ecumenism spring. As is common with Vatican II errors, the error itself is found in only a phrase or sentence. Here, the offending statement says:
“This Church [of Christ] constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure (emphasis added).”[xi]
The error is that the Church of Christ does not “subsist” in the Catholic Church, rather the Church of Christ “is” the Catholic Church as Pope Pius XII made clear in Humani Generis (see above).
Interestingly, the original draft of this paragraph used the word “is” (est in Latin) instead of “subsists” (subsistit in). This means that those who revised the original draft clearly did so with intent—an intent to distinguish the concept of “subsists in” and “is.” In other words, while similar, the concepts are not equal in the eyes of those who drafted the final version of the document.[xii]
Is this not all just semantics? I wish it was. The use of the phrase “subsists in”, rather than the word “is,” has the profound effect of teaching that the Church of Christ, or the Mystical Body of Christ, is not equivalent to the Catholic Church. If the Catholic Church subsists in the Church of Christ, this means the Church of Christ can include other religions beyond the Catholic Church, even while no part of the Catholic Church can be considered outside the Church of Christ.
In other words, the Church of Christ has “some room,” so to speak, to include parts of other religious communities that are not the Catholic Church. While the entirety of those other communities may not fit squarely within the Church of Christ like the Catholic Church, at least some portions (or elements) of them can be considered within the Church of Christ.
If the Church of Christ were equivalent to (the same as) the Catholic Church, then there would be no room for these other communities to claim they are part of the Church of Christ, since only the Catholic Church could claim that mantle.
The above diagram attempts to illustrate the difference between subsisting in the Church of Christ and being the Church of Christ. Notice how a Church of Christ that IS the Catholic Church would necessarily exclude non-Catholic Christians from claiming a share of the Church of Christ. However, a Catholic Church that SUBSISTS in the Church of Christ, leaves the door open for other non-Catholics to claim a share in the Church of Christ, even if only partially, while the Catholic Church remains fully and completely with the Church of Christ.
Should the reader be skeptical of whether the use of “subsists in” in Lumen Gentium actually means what is presented here, perhaps the reader will trust Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) when he confirmed on April 6, 2000 as prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:
“With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that ‘outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth’, that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church. But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that ‘they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church (emphasis added).’”[xiii]
Notice here that Ratzinger says the Church of Christ exists “fully only” in the Catholic Church, as opposed to those “not yet in full communion” with the Catholic Church. This distinction between full communion and partial communion is an innovation of Vatican II and confirms that elements of other non-Catholic communities can be found in the Church of Christ. Indeed, “subsists in,” allows for elements of sanctification and truth to be found outside the Catholic Church, even if their efficacy derives from the Church. This is contrary to Church Tradition, as shown above.
2. Unitatis Redintegratio
The next Vatican II document that serves to more fully implement the error of ecumenism established in Lumen Gentium is Unitatis Redintegratio, the Decree of Ecumenism. This document primarily deals with how Catholics should consider, and interact with, Protestants and others who claim to believe in Jesus Christ.
After the Decree starts off strong with some very orthodox Catholic statements, it plunges into abyss of heresy and error.
“It follows that the separated Churches 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 (emphasis added).”[xiv]
What significance or importance could non-Catholic religions, in themselves, possibly have in the mystery of salvation? Moreover, this statement explicitly states that the “Spirit of Christ” uses them as “means of salvation.” This phrase taken alone is explicit and rank heresy because there is only one Church of Christ as shown above.
However, fairness dictates we address the secondary phrase tacked on to the end indicating they [protestant churches] derive their efficacy from the fullness of grace entrusted to the Church.
Traditional Catholic teaching is clear that schismatic communities are not, to any degree, part of the Catholic Church or Mystical Body of Christ. This is because in addition to receiving baptism, those who are part of the Mystical Body of Christ must also share in the same faith! (See Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 22 above.)
Thus, even if a protestant baptism is valid, the validity of which derives from the authority of the Catholic Church, the protestant community in which this baptism took place offers no means of salvation whatsoever. If a protestant is ultimately saved from eternal damnation it can never be because of the protestant community, but in spite of it.
Continuing this effort to conflate the receipt of baptism with inclusion in the Church of Christ, which you recall from Lumen Gentium is broader than just the Catholic Church, the Decree states:
“Nevertheless, the divisions among Christians prevent the Church from attaining the fullness of catholicity proper to her, in those of her sons who, though attached to her by Baptism, are yet separated from full communion with her. Furthermore, the Church herself finds it more difficult to express in actual life her full catholicity in all her bearings.”[xv]
This clearly cannot be correct because how or why would the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church fail to attain the “fullness of catholicity” because certain baptized persons reject tenets of the faith? This could easily lead a reasonable person to believe the Church does not think she is entirely catholic! Is the Church not indefectible and not perfect?!
This idea that the Church is not complete or perfected unless those who reject her are brought into the fold explains why this effort to engage in dialogue with protestants becomes the driving force in the remainder of the Decree, including to the point where it indicates Catholics can learn something about their own faith by understanding Protestant beliefs in the ninth paragraph. The entire notion of dialoguing in this context is based on the lie that the Church (not just its members) can improve somehow by dialoguing other Christian communities.
All of this is logical and consistent with a new Vatican II view of the Church if one accepts the false premise laid out in Lumen Gentium that the Church subsists in the Church of Christ.
3. Nostra Aetate
Vatican II’s novel notion of ecumenism did not stop with non-Catholic Christians, who at least acknowledge the divinity of Jesus Christ, but extended to those who reject the divinity of Jesus Christ as well. We must, therefore, deal with the document Nostra Aetate, the Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions.
It begins with a short discussion on Hinduism and Buddhism. Recall that the polytheistic religion Hinduism teaches reincarnation—the idea that upon death the soul of a body transfers into a new physical body. This new physical body is not limited to a new human body, but can be an animal body because of Karma! If a person dies having wronged or become indebted to another, their Karma, this debt must be re-paid in this life. No other person (or god) can help relieve this Karma and no mercy is possible in the sense a Christian would understand it. Hinduism, in other words, rejects the notion of charity.
Concerning Hinduism, the Declaration says:
“Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with love and trust.”[xvi]
This implies Hindus believe in the one God and that somehow He will demonstrate mercy. This sleight of hand is intended to show how Christianity and Hinduism are similar in order to establish common ground that can be reached through dialogue.
With respect to Buddhism, the Declaration says:
“Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination.”[xvii]
This “higher liberation” is essentially complete destruction of the person in Nirvana. Buddhism rejects the notion of God and believes that true liberation is nothingness, achieved through one’s own efforts.
Vatican II seeks to accommodate such false (evil) religions when the Declaration goes on to say:
“The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.”[xviii]
This effort to find the “good” in these religions constitutes fraud. The declaration intentionally leaves out important information about these religions in order to foster ecumenism. Moreover, the notion that someone can stretch to find something objectively good or true about these false religions is totally irrelevant when it comes to the salvation of one’s soul.
Even Josef Stalin probably performed a noble deed at some point during his earthly life—does that make him, overall as a person, someone we can look to with “sincere reverence” in our path to finding Jesus Christ and the ultimate Truth? No, because Stalin’s good thoughts and deeds are not relevant to his salvation as someone who openly rejects Christ, and certainly is not relevant to ours.
The Declaration, however, leads an unwary reader to believe—in the spirit of ecumenism—that because we can find something good on the natural level with other religions that, in some way, we can find common ground when it comes to matters of faith. Again, this is fraud.
What about Islam? Do not Muslims believe in the same one God that Christians do? The Declaration says:
“They [Muslims] adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God.”[xix]
Islam, of course, rejects the Holy Trinity and denies the divinity of Jesus Christ. It is the triune God who created heaven and earth, not the God of Islam which rejects Christ’s divinity. St. John made it clear that
“Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father. He who confesses the Son has the Father also.”[xx]
Interestingly, the Declaration cites to Pope Gregory VII in support of the idea that Muslims worship the same God as the Christians. This is misleading. It is true there is one sentence in a letter Pope Gregory wrote to a Muslim king about 1000 years ago in which he indicated that Christians and Muslims believe and profess one God as Creator of the earth.
Besides the fact that one letter written to a Muslim king has no dogmatic value whatsoever, the letter simply acknowledges that on a subjective level both Christians and Muslims believe they are worshiping the one true Creator God. If you ask a Muslim if he believes in the one true God, and his name is Allah, he will say “yes!” Objectively, however, the Muslims are not worshiping the same God because the Muslims admit explicitly, they reject the trinitarian nature of God, which is the essence of God.
Okay, the clever reader will now say, at least we can say the Jews and Christians have some common ground. Afterall, Christ was a Jew and we accept the Old Testament as Holy Scripture! The Declaration certainly attempts to make this case:
“God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues-such is the witness of the Apostle… True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ; still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures.”[xxi]
The deception in the above statement lies in its failure to distinguish between Judaism at the time of Christ and Judaism today. The Hebrew religion, indeed, was the true religion, which continued on as Christianity after the coming of the Messiah, Jesus Christ. God certainly held the Jews in great esteem as the Chosen People up to the time of Christ. But then, as the Declaration admits, a large number rejected Christ. Those who accepted Christ became known as Christians. Those who rejected Christ, even down to the present day, can no longer be considered in God’s favor because they rejected Christ.
This important distinction that the Council documents neglect clearly finds support in the New Testament[xxii], the Church Fathers[xxiii], and St. Thomas Aquinas.
For example, Aquinas teaches:
“Now, though our faith in Christ is the same as that of the fathers of old; yet, since they came before Christ, whereas we come after Him, the same faith is expressed in different words, by us and by them… In like manner the ceremonies of the Old Law betokened Christ as having yet to be born and to suffer: whereas our sacraments signify Him as already born and having suffered. Consequently, just as it would be a mortal sin now for anyone, in making a profession of faith, to say that Christ is yet to be born, which the fathers of old said devoutly and truthfully; so too it would be a mortal sin now to observe those ceremonies which the fathers of old fulfilled with devotion and fidelity.”[xxiv]
How can Vatican II declare God holds modern Judaism dear and does not reject it when Holy Scripture and Tradition teach otherwise? Of course, any particular Jew is able to receive God’s favor and gain eternal salvation through conversion. But nowhere in the Declaration does it say that either. In fact, the word “conversion” is not used once in Nostra Aetate!
C. Summary of Vatican II vs. Traditionalism
The above survey of Vatican II’s teachings on ecumenism should be sufficient to see its direct contradiction with the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church.
It is important to reiterate how the teachings concerning protestants in Unitatis Redintegratio and non-Christians in Nostra Aetate hinge on the false base premise made in Lumen Gentium.
The sophistry, and ultimate error, consists in the Council’s attempt to manipulate language to create a distinction between the Church of Christ, or the Mystical Body of Christ, and the Catholic Church. Such a distinction is not just a novelty but is heretical with significant consequences.
This severance of the Church of Christ from the Catholic Church allows for the possibility that false religions can share in some Truth with the true religion when it comes to matters of faith and spirtual life. We can then see more clearly why Vatican II rehabilitates Protestantism because it shares the same baptism, or teaches that Muslims believe in the same One God as Christians, or that Buddhists seek supreme illumination (like Christians seek Heaven), or that modern Jews remain in God’s favor because they share a common heritage with Christians.
These modernist concepts directly contradict the dogma that outside the Church there is no salvation and denies that Christ is the One Mediator with God, all while promoting the heresy of indifferentism because on some level all religions are valuable in the eyes of God.
D. Consequences of Ecumenism
Perhaps some may write off the problems with ecumenism as not a big deal. Did not the Council simply attempt to find some common ground upon which different religious communities can build upon to hopefully reach a greater level of unity someday? Sadly, the real-life consequences have been catastrophic, which is predictable when God’s authority and Church teaching is mocked. Some examples may help illuminate.
1. Good Friday Prayers
The first example is the change to the Good Friday prayers, specifically the ones where the Catholic faithful prays for the Jews. The traditional version prayed for “the perfidious Jews, that the Lord God may take the veils from their hearts and that they also may acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ.” The prayer then asks God to “hear the prayers which we offer for the blindness of that people so that they may acknowledge the light of Your truth, which is Christ, and be delivered from their darkness.”
Pope John XXIII first removed the phrase “perfidious Jews,” which refers to their unfaithfulness to God, in 1959. Pope Paul VI changed the prayer again in 1965 to remove the reference to blindness, and then replaced it in 1969 with an entirely new version that prays to God that the Jews “may continue to grow in the love of his name and in faithfulness to his covenant.”
Removing references to unfaithfulness and blindness in the prayer suggests that the Church refuses to acknowledge a difference between pre-Christian Judaism and Judaism of today. Even worse, Pope Paul VI’s version no longer prays for the conversion of the Jews! This is tragic. But this is the real consequence of the modernist mentality that is more concerned with worldly human respect than God’s desire to save the Jews through acceptance of Christ.
2. World Day of Prayer in Assisi
False ecumenism reared its ugly head at the prayer meeting of religions in Assisi, Italy on October 27, 1986. This interreligious event provided the occasion for Pope John Paul II to pray with religious leaders from other religious sects on an equal playing field, as if there was no difference whatsoever between the Church founded by Jesus Christ and those who reject Him. The Pope did not preside over this meeting but stood as an equal with leaders from the other major religions.
During this event, it was reported that a group of Buddhists entered the church of San Pietro, erected a statue of the Buddha on the altar and venerated it with incense. When a priest attempted to stop the sacrilege, the police were called, and the priest (not the Buddhists) was removed from the church.[xxv]
These acts of prayer and interaction with false religions were perfectly consistent with Pope John Paul II’s other ecumenical efforts. Such efforts included allowing a Hindu priest to place the mark of Talak on his forehead and publicly kissing the Koran at meeting with Muslims in Iraq.[xxvi]
And if there is any doubt that such sacrilegious acts that took place in Assisi resulted directly because of a correct understanding of Vatican II and what the Council taught, Pope John Paul II cleared that up himself at his Christmas Address to the Roman Curia in 1986:
“The event of Assisi can thus be considered as a visible illustration, an exegesis of the events, a catechesis, intelligible to all, of what is presupposed and signified by the commitment to ecumenism and to the inter-religious dialogue which was recommended and promoted by the Second Vatican Council.”[xxvii]
One must ask, if the Pope is willing to the kiss the Koran publicly and pray on an equal playing field with those who deny the divinity of Christ, why would a reasonable person not conclude there really is no difference among the religions in the eyes of God?
3. Abu Dhabi Declaration
A more recent example of how Vatican II’s false ecumenism can impact international affairs took place in Abu Dhabi in February of 2019. Francis attended an interreligious meeting and signed a joint declaration with the Islamic Grand Imam. The document was titled “A Document on Human Fraternity For World Peace And Living Together.”
Space limits my ability to expose every error and heresy in the document. The most obvious heresy and blasphemy to which Francis agreed and signed his name was the following point of agreement with the Grand Imam:
“Freedom is a right of every person: each individual enjoys the freedom of belief, thought, expression and action. The pluralism and the diversity of religions, color, sex, race, and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings. This divine wisdom is the source from which the right to freedom of belief and the freedom to be different derives (emphasis added).”[xxviii]
This statement is the unavoidable natural consequence of Vatican II errors, as it restates the heresy of religious freedom (discussed in the prior article in this series on Errors of Vatican II) and states that God wills the diversity of religions.
The idea that God, in His wisdom, willed that false religions should exist is so blasphemous that it should shock the conscience of even the most ardent ecumenist. I will not insult the reader to explain why God would never will someone to believe in a false religion that rejects Jesus Christ or His Church.
And again, for those inclined to defend Vatican II, Francis made it clear that Vatican II inspired this declaration on the return flight from Abu Dhabi to Rome:
“I openly reaffirm this: from the Catholic point of view the Document does not move one millimetre away from the Second Vatican Council. It is even cited, several times. The Document was crafted in the spirit of the Second Vatican Council.” [xxix]
At the end of the day, if one accepts the Vatican II notion of ecumenism, why would anyone need or want to become a Catholic? Moreover, why would any Catholic choose to remain Catholic and not explore other faiths that are perhaps less demanding on social issues? After all, Vatican II tells them other religions and faith communities must be treated equally, even if some differences remain, because they share in the graces of Christ’s Church and offer an alternate pathway to connecting with the true God.
We can now see why this newly constructed concept of the Church, which contradicts centuries of magisterial teachings and seeks to accommodate the Kingship of Christ to false religions and the ways of the godless secular world, gravely jeopardizes the souls of millions.
[i] Nix, Father David. “‘Ecumenical:’ Old and New Definitions.” Padre Peregrino, August 24, 2022. https://www.padreperegrino.org/2022/08/ecumenical/; see also Wilhelm, J. (1908). General Councils. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm
[ii] St. Iranaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, 4, (circa 174 and 189).
[iii] Lactantius, Divine Institutes, Book IV (311).
[iv] St. Augustine, Sermo ad Caesariensis Ecclesia plebem (438).
[v] Fourth Lateran Council, 1 (1215).
[vi] Pius IX, Singulari Quadam (1854).
[vii] Pius IX, Iam Vos Omnes (1868)(Google translation of Italian version).
[viii] Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 13 (1943).
[ix] Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 22 (1943).
[x] Pius XII, Humani Generis, 77 (1950).
[xi] Lumen Gentium, Chap. I, 8
[xii] Davies, Michael. Pope John’s Council, 2006, pp. 90-92.
[xiii] Ratzinger, Joseph (Benedict XVI), Dominus Jesus, 16.
[xiv] Unitatis Redintegratio, 3
[xv] Unitatis Redintegratio, 4
[xvi] Nostra Aetate, 2
[xvii] Ibid.
[xviii] Ibid.
[xix] Ibid., 3.
[xx] 1 John 2:22-23.
[xxi] Nostra Aetate, 4
[xxii] See e.g. 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16
[xxiii] See. e.g. St. Ignatius, Epistle to the Magnesians
[xxiv] St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I of II, Q. 103, Art. 4
[xxv] Sire, H. J. A. Phoenix From the Ashes: The Making, Unmaking, and Restoration of Catholic Tradition, 2015, pp. 383-84.
[xxvi] Tradition in Action. “Pope Kisses the Koran,” available at: https://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A055rcKoran.htm.
[xxvii] EWTN Global Catholic Television Network. “Pope’s Christmas Address to Roman Curia | EWTN,” n.d. https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/popes-christmas-address-to-roman-curia-8651.
[xxviii] Fair, Jim. “Abu Dhabi: Historic Document Signed by Pope Francis and Grand Imam of Al-Azhar.” ZENIT – English, February 4, 2019. https://zenit.org/2019/02/04/abu-dhabi-historic-document-signed-by-pope-francis-and-grand-imam-of-al-azhar/#google_vignette.
[xxix] “Apostolic Journey to the United Arab Emirates: Press Conference on the Return Flight From Abu Dhabi to Rome (Papal Flight, 5 February 2019) | Francis,” February 5, 2019. https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2019/february/documents/papa-francesco_20190205_emiratiarabi-voloritorno.html.