Vademecum? “Interchurch,” “Ministers” and Nonsense, Oh My

It’s official – the Vatican has released its latest ecumen-maniacal nonsense.

Berruguete’s St. Dominic and the Albigensians, detail

The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity has fielded a handbook, three years in the making, entitled: The Bishop and Christian Unity: An Ecumenical Vademecum.

It is madness, so we won’t dig in much here. Read the English original at your peril.

But thankfully, the Vatican is at least becoming more forthright: it no longer hesitates to point out its own break with tradition, as it openly prescribes acts regarded by our forebears as intrinsically evil – as in, gravely sinful in themselves. As in, inadmissible.

No obfuscation, just brazen novelty. From n. 17 of the document, our emphasis:

Catholics not only can, but indeed must, seek out opportunities to pray with other Christians. Certain forms of prayer are particularly appropriate… [T]he ancient Christian practice of praying the psalms and scriptural canticles together (the Prayer of the Church) is a tradition [!] that continues to be common throughout many Christian communities and therefore lends itself to be prayed ecumenically. In promoting joint prayer Catholics should be sensitive to the fact that some Christian communities do not practise joint prayer with other Christians, as was once the case for the Catholic Church. (n. 17)

Since they use the nigh-incredible example of praying the Divine Office with non-Catholics, let’s revisit that particular moral act in past Church teaching and legislation. Just a quick fly-over, mind you…

  • “No one shall pray in common with heretics and schismatics” –Synod of Laodicea, 363
  • “No one must either pray or sing psalms with heretics” –Council of Carthage, 397
  • “Let a bishop, presbyter, or deacon, who has prayed with heretics be excommunicated” –Apostolic Canons, c. 450
  • “If anyone refuses to avoid heretics after they have been pointed out by the Church, let them also be excommunicated” –Council of Lateran IV, 1215
  • “Heretics and those stained with some taint of heresy… are to be totally excluded from the company of Christ’s faithful” –Council of Lateran V, 1512
  • “It is illicit to invite heretics into choir during sacred services, to sing alternately with them, to give them peace, sacred ashes, candles and blessed palms, and other such tokens of external worship” –Cong. of the Holy Office, 1859
  • “It is not licit for Catholics to attend or take part in an active way in non-catholic ceremonies” –Canon Law, 1917
  • “In all these meetings and conferences, any communication whatsoever in worship must be avoided” –Cong. of the Holy Office, 1949

With those few in mind (and many more here), reread the Vademecum quote above. What else is there to say?

Yes, we once thought that was evil. But not anymore. Now, it’s a moral imperative.”

Saints preserve us.

The torture of Jesuit martyrs Edward Oldcorne and Nicholas Owen

The document goes on to make a recommendation that is truly decolorativa candoris ecclesiæ and injurious in particular to the memory of the English martyrs – not to mention insulting to all their descendants in the Faith:

Where appropriate, Catholic and other Christian ministers may be invited to share the ministry of preaching in each other’s non-Eucharistic services (n. 20)

Countless Catholics in the UK once purchased crowns of glory by refusing simply to listen to Anglican sermons; now, those very murderers and their descendants in heresy are hailed as “ministers” with some share in the “ministry of preaching” – a ministry that, in truth, can only be conferred by the Successors of the Apostles. Piarum aurium offensiva. Despicable.

The Vademecum also reduces the grave sin of communicatio in sacris (again) to the act of mutual participation in sacraments (true or false), particularly that of “communion.” And once again, ignoring two thousand years of traditional doctrine and morals, the practice is approved – nay, recommended. One finds a sentence that can hardly be believed:

Communicatio in sacris is therefore permitted for the care of souls within certain circumstances, and when this is the case it is to be recognised as both desirable and commendable. (n. 36)

It’s laughable to read that alongside a proscription in the old Canon Law, scrubbed in 1983:

One who engages in communicatio in sacris… is suspected of heresy. (Can. 2316)


(Now, what to do with all those traditional catechisms that flatly condemn the new Vademecum as contrary to eternal and divine law… Rather bothersome, those old tomes!)

The Vademecum further maintains that only faith and some “proper disposition” (n. 36) are sufficient for non-Catholics to receive the Holy Eucharist, in defiance of the teaching of the Council of Trent…

“If anyone saith that faith alone is a sufficient preparation for receiving the Sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist; let him be anathema. … But if anyone shall presume to teach, preach, or obstinately to assert, or even in public disputation to defend the contrary, he shall be thereupon excommunicated.” (Sess. 30)

…and rehashes the damnable notion that other religions are “means of salvation” (n. 2), basing itself on (surprise) the documents of Vatican II.

It goes so far as to employ terms like “interconfessional” and even “interchurch” (as though there was more than one) with a straight face! Don’t forget the new language tactic.

The possibility of scandal is actually raised (somewhat surprisingly) with regard to various wicked practices: shared worship with non-Catholics, intercommunion with heretics and schismatics, the sacrilegious lending out of consecrated spaces for rites of false worship, etc. However, such concerns are more or less dismissed with a polite wave of – you guessed it – the discernment and accompaniment wand.

Calling all “good bishops” out there…

…How long will you let this go on?

Veni, Emmanuel.


  1. decolorativa canodris ecclesiæ ? If the author knew Latin, he would be less likely to reproduce typos from the Catholic Encyclopedia.


  2. Love your content… just can’t figure out how you think this devil is a pope. Believing he is Pope is to believe he can be both Christ’s vicar and be able to teach, in Christ’s name mind you, grave errors. So much for the faithful being like children! The faithful now have to be scholars parsing through “papal” documents to determine what teachings are valuable vs dangerous.

    No, a true Pope is always safe to follow, not always infallible, but safe This includes canon laws, teaching documents, magisterial pronouncements, etc.

    The reason SSPX are schismatics is do to their R&R system of belief that reduces the Papacy to an advice bureau or information service.

    Understand that believing Bergoglio is a true Pope destroys the office, not believing that he is an anti-pope.

    Father Riley speaking of the great west schism

    But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be. Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfill His promises… We may also trust that He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself by his promises. We may look forward with cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the trouble and misfortunes that have befallen in the past. But we, or our successors in the future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree.


    • Rich, your comment is much appreciated, particularly the quote from Fr. Riley – you must be either a UK native or widely read, to know of that priest’s laudable work.

      It is not outside the realm of ontological possibility that Francis is, as you suggest, an antipope usurper of the papal throne. But WOR is uncertain of the case; even a thousand probabilities don’t make one, we’ve received no private revelation on the topic, and rightfully regard its adjudication as beyond our scope.

      Furthermore, the devastating scenario of a Pope being divinely permitted to teach error in every capacity but the narrow limits of binding ex cathedra definitions seems a far more “distressing contingency regarding the Church” than a long-vacant Petrine See… and perhaps one far more likely to deceive the Elect.


      • “Furthermore, the devastating scenario of a Pope being divinely permitted to teach error in every capacity but the narrow limits of binding ex cathedra definitions seems a far more “distressing contingency regarding the Church” than a long-vacant Petrine See… and perhaps one far more likely to deceive the Elect.“

        I simply wish to suggest that during an interregnum, The Church still functions just as in the great Western schism. Although She is less visible to the less astute observer, she still exists and is still working in the world.

        The question then becomes, what does a true catholic see and what does he follow during this eclipse of the church, to this epoch with no Pope ?

        Understanding what The Church has taught about herself, that Christ vicar cannot lead the sheep astray. It is then requisite not to attribute a power to one whom doesn’t hold such power.

        Or an angel from heaven – If it were possible. Preach another gospel, let him be accursed – Cut off from Christ and God. Gal 1:8

        My greatest fear I see is during this vacancy of a valid Pope, is that some are attributing possibilities of error to the office of pope that are impossible, thus destroying to the office… just so they can have a “Pope” in Francis.

        From Liberalism is a Sin


        F. G. HOLWECK
        ST. LOUIS, JUNE 26TH, 1899 IMPRIMATUR:
        +JOHN J. KAIN
        JUNE 30, 1899

        “A well instructed Catholic–who thoroughly comprehends the rational grounds of his faith and understands the character of Liberal tactics under our national conditions–can alone successfully cope with the enemy face-to-face. Ultramontanism is the only conquering legion in this sort of warfare. It is the vanguard of the army to surprise the enemy at his own ambuscade, to mine against his mine and expose him before he has burrowed under our own camp. Ultramontanism is Catholicity intact, armed cap-a-pie or head-to-foot. It is Catholicity consistent in all its parts, the logical concatenation of Catholic principles to their fullest conclusions in doctrine and practice. Hence the fierce and unholy opposition with which it is constantly assailed. The foe well knows that to rout the vanguard is to demoralize the entire army. Hence their rage and fury against the invincible phalanx which always stands fully armed, sleeplessly vigilant and eternally uncompromising. In this, above all other countries, do Catholics need to be watchful, constant and unshaken in their faith, for the disease of Liberalism is virulently endemic. Its assault is perpetual, its weapons invisible, save to the enlightened eye of a resolute and undaunted faith.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s