Recent Featured Videos and Articles | Eastern “Orthodoxy” Refuted | How To Avoid Sin | The Antichrist Identified! | What Fake Christians Get Wrong About Ephesians | Why So Many Can't Believe | “Magicians” Prove A Spiritual World Exists | Amazing Evidence For God | News Links |
Vatican II “Catholic” Church Exposed | Steps To Convert | Outside The Church There Is No Salvation | E-Exchanges | The Holy Rosary | Padre Pio | Traditional Catholic Issues And Groups | Help Save Souls: Donate | ![]() |
The Ravenna Document – the Vatican II sect’s latest ecumenical outrage with the “Orthodox”
By Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B.
A commission under Benedict XVI recently put out a document with the “Orthodox.” It received many headlines in the mainstream press. The commission which published the document is entitled the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. The heretical document it produced is called The Ravenna Document. If I were to sum up the document in one sentence, it would be: A Vatican commission under Benedict XVI has approved the schismatic “Orthodox” view of the Church, the “Orthodox” view of the authority of bishops and how they work together, the “Orthodox” view of how ecumenical councils are approved, etc. I will quickly go through some of the more important points and heresies that are promoted in this document. This is a document which, it must be emphasized again, has been promulgated by a commission under Benedict XVI and has been mentioned widely in the mainstream press and in many churches of the Vatican II sect.
I will try to be as brief as possible in my commentary and quickly move through the heretical passages. The Ravenna Document is available in its complete form on the Vatican’s website: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20071013_documento-ravenna_en.html. I first want to draw your attention to paragraph 2. Keep in mind that what is quoted is a joint declaration by the Vatican’s authorities and the leaders of the Orthodox commission:
Notice that the document states that the dialogue between the Vatican II sect and the “Orthodox” churches has led them to a “deeper understanding” of ecclesial communion. Isn’t it interesting that Vatican I, in condemning departures from traditional Catholic dogma, condemned precisely the attempt to advance such false teachings under the specious name of a “deeper understanding”?
The Ravenna Document must say that its conclusion on the communion between “Catholics” and “Orthodox” is a “deeper understanding” since it flies in the face of traditional Catholic dogma and many traditional papal proclamations.
Remember, the Vatican II sect and the “Orthodox” are conjointly speaking here. So, according to this document on the Vatican’s website, all the “Orthodox” churches which celebrate the Eucharist are part of the one and holy Church. That the “Orthodox” churches are part of the one Church is not even remotely under dispute in this document. However, such an idea is blatantly heretical. It rejects, among other things, the papal declarations that those who deny the faith or the Papacy are outside the Church and thus sin when they receive the Eucharist.
#8 of The Ravenna Document speaks of the tasks and duties of bishops as “successors of the Apostles.” This includes, again, the “Orthodox” bishops. It thus teaches that “Orthodox” bishops are true successors to the apostles with authority in the Church, even though they reject the Papacy. This is a heretical understanding of apostolic succession.
#16 speaks of authority in the Church:
Authority in the Church, according to this outrageously heretical document, is regulated by the canons and statutes of “the Church”! Since both sides are speaking together, that refers to the canons and statutes recognized by both the Vatican and the “Orthodox.” The “Orthodox,” of course, hold a different view on councils and which canons are binding, among other things. Moreover, nothing here is mentioned about the authority of a pope to overturn the disciplinary laws of councils – which popes have done at times. So what is approved here is simply the “Orthodox” view of authority: a vague collection of past laws from certain councils which certain persons deem to be binding. If it sounds nebulous (e.g., which statutes and which councils regulate the Church?) that’s because it is. “Orthodoxy” is ultimately an earlier form of Protestantism, in which each person or bishop can eventually decide for himself which councils and which canons must be accepted.
#18 defines the Church in a heretical fashion. It throws the requirement to acknowledge the pope and his supreme jurisdiction out the window:
This definition necessarily includes the multiplicity of “Orthodox” churches, since (once again) the “Orthodox” and the Vatican are conjointly speaking here. So as we go along here we can see why I would say that this document is simply an approval of “Orthodoxy” and its view of the Church. That’s all it is.
#22 says that each local church must be in communion with the others, if it is to manifest Catholicity. So the “Catholic” local churches must be in communion with the local churches that are “Orthodox,” if they are to be manifestly Catholic.
What’s interesting is that it says that this communion can be manifested in a number of ways:
This essentially lays the groundwork for a Super-Church of “Catholic” bishops and “Orthodox” bishops, in which each bishop basically does his own thing with his own view of how things should work but maintains a working communion with the other group and its bishops. The working communion of the bishops in this Super-Church is, as we read above, manifested by some of the things described above. Notice that all of things which are underlined – which manifest this working and active communion between the two – have been done by Benedict XVI and the other Vatican II antipopes.
For instance, the official teaching of the Vatican II sect is that “Orthodox” can receive Communion and Benedict XVI concelebrates with their leaders. He also has sent numerous letters on the occasion of an “Orthodox” bishop taking over for one who has passed away; these letters frequently encourage the new bishop in his “ministry” and speak of his “responsibilities” as “pastor in the Church.” John Paul II also provided “material assistance” by giving $100,000 to the Orthodox. So the Vatican II antipopes have frequently given the signs described above which not only acknowledge a communion between their churches and the “Orthodox,” but a working and active communion. Therefore, the point here is that one could say that the two are already working together as part of an “Orthodox” Super-Church – their consultations, joint declarations and ecumenical ventures serving as an example of two or more patriarchs cooperating to solve the “Church’s” problems.
Remember, this includes the “Orthodox” churches and thus their bishops!
Think about #27 carefully. This trashes the primacy of the Church of Rome. A pope could hold a council at Rome and make its decisions binding for all. In that case the decisions of a regional council would have authority over other ecclesiastical regions, since the pope used his supreme authority to make that regional council universally binding. But such a concept is excluded by this heretical document.
In fact, decisions of the Vatican commissions (e.g. the Holy Office) could be considered decisions of local councils. If a pope approved one of those in a binding and solemn form, that would become binding on the whole Church. This indeed occurred, for example, when Pope St. Pius X solemnly approved and made binding the decree of the Holy Office, Lamentabile of July 3, 1907 (Denzinger 2001 and Denz. 2114). But, according to this heretical document which has been published by those under Benedict XVI, Pope Pius X should not and could not have so bound other churches to the decree of the Holy Office entitled Lamentabile. Furthermore, if regional councils cannot bind other churches, as this document says, then certainly a bull or encyclical emanating simply from the Church of Rome couldn’t bind all the churches. One can see that this paragraph is simply schismatic nonsense which trashes Catholic dogma on the Papacy.
#29 of The Ravenna Document actually says that the rise of schismatic “autocephalous” churches [i.e. self-headed churches with no authority (i.e. Rome) above them] are an expression of communion in the Church:
This is an endorsement of schism and a total rejection of Vatican I, of course.
#37 contains bold heresy on the decisions of ecumenical councils and how they become binding:
According to this, the ecumenicity of councils is determined, not by the approval of a Roman Pontiff, but by the “people of God as a whole” – by reflection and discernment. This trashes Catholic dogma on the authority of the Roman Pontiff vis-à-vis councils.
I have frequently made the point that the “Orthodox” (since they consider all bishops to have equal authority) have no consistent criteria by which they can say that some councils are ecumenical and others not. Since there were many councils which they reject and some which they consider binding (and all of them were approved by bishops), that poses a problem for them to define the specific criteria which make one council binding and another not binding. But if one were to attempt to articulate a position for the “Orthodox,” it would sound basically like what is said above: it would be a vague definition which involves the Church’s acceptance of certain councils by “reflection, discussion and prayer.” In other words, it would be ambiguous nonsense which provides no specific criteria - which leaves it up to each individual to figure it out. So, the Ravenna Document not only articulates a schismatic “Orthodox” position on how councils are determined to be ecumenical, but presents this as the position of the Church.
#39 of this heretical document lends credence to the schismatic “Orthodox” position that no ecumenical councils were truly held after the first seven:
This means that the councils of Florence, Trent, Vatican I, etc. were not ecumenical in the “strict sense of the term.” Notice how this contradicts the explicit teaching of Vatican I:
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Sess. 4, Chap. 3 on the primacy of the Roman Pontiff: “…we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical council of Florence, which must be believed by all the faithful of Christ, namely, that the apostolic see and the Roman Pontiff hold primacy over the whole world…” (Denz. 1826)
#41 articulates the position on the primacy of the Bishop of Rome which is held by many “Orthodox.” Many “Orthodox” hold that the Bishop of Rome has a primacy of honor among bishops, but not of jurisdiction. They admit that the Bishop of Rome has a primacy of honor because St. Ignatius of Antioch (who lived in the apostolic era) said that the Church of Rome “presides in love.” But they deny what Christ conferred upon St. Peter and his successors: the power to govern all the sheep of His Church (John 21:15-17) by a true primacy of jurisdiction (as taught by Vatican I and the fathers of the Church). Such a primacy necessarily involves infallibility. So the “Orthodox” understanding of St. Ignatius’s statement is heretical. The true understanding of it is that a primacy of honor necessarily denotes a true primacy with true authority behind it – not some kind of fictitious “primacy of honor” with nothing behind it which would be of practical consequence. So in #41, a primacy of honor is denoted for the Bishop of Rome but nothing more – and that’s no problem for the “Orthodox” because of the way they understand it.
In the last sentence we see that the rejection of the Bishop of Rome’s primacy of jurisdiction by the “Orthodox” is presented as acceptable. It’s doesn’t matter to the “Catholic” authors of this document that this issue concerns a defined Catholic dogma which binds all Christians under pain of anathema:
In #45 we see the same heresy (which denies the Papacy) repeated. Before I quote it, keep in mind that heresy is a denial or doubt of a divinely revealed truth. Thus, one doesn’t have to say “Vatican I is false” to reject the teaching of Vatican I. One can simply say or indicate that Vatican I might be false or might not be binding. That’s exactly what is indicated in #45:
This clearly calls into question whether Vatican I is true and binding. All of this shows that the latest ecumenical outrage is quite a combination of heresy, schism and endorsement of the most obvious heresies of the schismatic “Orthodox” sect. It’s a statement which reflects schismatic “Orthodox” views on the Church, bishops, councils, etc. All of these clear Papacy-rejecting heresies have been promoted by Benedict XVI’s commission.
Sign up for our free e-mail list to see future vaticancatholic.com videos and articles.
Recent Content
^