Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: Fifth Reply to a "Traditionalist" (Ecumenism and St. Paul the Good "Vatican II" Ecumenist)

The Apostle Paul Preaching on Mars Hill in Athens

[this person wants to be anonymous, so I have substituted "Bill" for his name]

See the previous four installments:

Critique of Some Comments from a "Traditionalist"

The "Traditionalist" Counter-Responds

Third Reply to a "Traditionalist"

Fourth Reply to a "Traditionalist"

I also wrote the following five papers in reply (to some degree) to things that Bill wrote (the first two as a result of direct challenges):

Is It Dissent Against the Pope and the Church, and Downright Disobedient For a Catholic to Favor the War in Iraq?

Robert Sungenis' Denial of the Catholic De Fide Dogma of God's Immutability and Profound Confusion About Time and Eternity

The Catholic "Traditionalist" Derisive Term Neo-Conservative (Catholic)

Pope John Paul II and the Koran-Kissing Incident: Summary and Analysis of the Incoherence of the Horrified "Traditionalist" Objection

On the Tridentine Mass, Unnecessary Related Divisions, and Pope Benedict XVI's New Directives Regarding Same (vs. John F. Triolo)

Bill's words will be in blue. My older cited words will be in green.

* * * * *

You cite Pope John Paul II:

There are people who in the face of the difficulties or because they consider that the first ecumenical endeavours have brought negative results would have liked to turn back. Some even express the opinion that these efforts are harmful to the cause of the Gospel, are leading to a further rupture in the Church, are causing confusion of ideas in questions of faith and morals and are ending up with a specific indifferentism. It is perhaps a good thing that the spokesmen for these opinions should express their fears.

(Redemptor Hominis, 6)

Sure; no problem, but the reader ought to read what he writes immediately after this passage, too:

However, in this respect also, correct limits must be maintained. It is obvious that this new stage in the Church's life demands of us a faith that is particularly aware, profound and responsible. True ecumenical activity means openness, drawing closer, availability for dialogue, and a shared investigation of the truth in the full evangelical and Christian sense; but in no way does it or can it mean giving up or in any way diminishing the treasures of divine truth that the Church has constantly confessed and taught.

Now if to criticize the ecumenical program is contrary to the mind of the Church and something that is protestant, against Vatican II etc., how could the late Pope call it "a good thing"?

That's part of dialogue: to entertain criticism at times, but "trads" take it too far, since they rarely seem to meet an ecumenical meeting that they like. They don't usually stick to the "correct limits" that the late Holy Father refers to.

Obviously he did not agree, he felt that the Church could in fact engage in dialogue and not give the impression of indifferentism. I would argue that though he in fact believed that he could do this, in reality that isn't what happened.

I've already discussed how false impressions cannot always be avoided (especially in my latest paper on kissing the Koran). There will always be folks who misunderstand any thing that is not simple and involve a degree of complexity and required thought. I don't deny someone the prerogative to criticize the prudence of certain actions. As I recall, I conceded that in my first defense of Pope John Paul II's kissing of the Koran some years ago now. It's a matter of degree and attitude. "Trads" seem to often possess a black and white, "either/or" mentality that is very much exhibited in their relentless critiques of ecumenical efforts.

For whatever reason, you fail to make the distinction between false ecumenism and true ecumenism in line with Catholic tradition.

I do this constantly in my many papers on the topic. Moreover, I did this several times in my last reply (the "4th"):

Once again: it is one thing to disagree on a matter where the pope expressly says that a Catholic is fully at liberty to disagree; quite another to trash the entire Mind of the Church with regard to ecumenism. You seem to have never "met" an ecumenist endeavor that you ever liked. You appear to collapse all of them into ersatz liberal ecumenism. That would include the many ecumenical efforts I have undertaken myself, or have defended, and I ain't no liberal, any more than the last two popes were.

* * *

So you say that Vatican II contains no heresies, and we have the Decree on Ecumenism. You have conceded that this decree contained within itself the notion of the One True Church and convincing people to become part of it, as the ultimate goal of ecumenism.

* * *

Pope Pius XI condemned indifferentism, as he should, because it is theological relativism and minimalism. Vatican II ecumenism does not pretend that Catholics don't believe what they do. The ecumenical strain of thought goes back to the early centuries. We see it in how St. Augustine approached the Donatists. We see it in St. Paul on Mars Hill and in Jesus when He dealt with the Roman centurion and the Samaritan woman. It is in St. Thomas Aquinas to a great degree and in many patristic passages dealing with salvation outside the Church.

* * *

You have simply assumed that the "Ecumenical movement" (however you are defining that) is indifferentist. But Vatican II ecumenism certainly is not, nor is the ecumenism practiced by Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI. If you condemn the liberal version of ecumenism, then you have no beef with me, because I do the same, and have for many years, just as vigorously as any "traditionalist" does.

* * *

Because again you throw the baby out with the bathwater, as so often. You confuse abuses and distortions of things with the things themselves.

That's an awful lot of material, if I supposedly "fail[ed] to make the distinction between false ecumenism and true ecumenism." So I must say that I am mystified by your complaint.

I am arguing that while document wise the Church upholds true ecumenism, in practice, men in the Church including the Pope have engaged in what amounts to false ecumenism, even though they may have meant it to be true Ecumenism.

And I deny this, because the thing is not to be confused with either abuses of it or false perceptions of it. If they meant it to be authentic Catholic ecumenism, then it was (John Paul II may have been many things in your eyes and/or in reality, but he was not dumb or dense; I think even you'd agree). On the other hand, if it wasn't Vatican II ecumenism, then we can reasonably conclude that they (whoever it is you are critiquing) had the wrong notion in mind. But to say they had the right notion and intention, but somehow it all came out wrong and turned into indifferentism is an insult to one's intelligence and to the integrity of the people in these efforts. It's much more likely and plausible, in my opinion, that the "trad" has misunderstood. But this is the typical "trad" tendency of ambiguity and almost saying two things at once: "the documents are orthodox but the practice is indifferentist." I don't buy it.

That is all I have meant throughout, in the event it is not clear.

Alright. I appreciate your at least granting them good intentions, but I find this implausible and inadequate as an opinion on the matter.

So no, I would not remove Unitatis Redintegratio from Vatican II, were I Pope I would make sure my practice was in conformity with that and with the Tradition, and the lives of the saints. Would that I as a layman would do that! How much more the Pope? Furthermore I do like Ecumenism, in unity with Tradition by which the Church has engaged non-Catholics. I only hate false ecumenism.

Me, too. Please give me some examples, then, of ecumenical efforts that you have supported and agreed with. Thanks.

Secondly, I do not accept Fr. Morselli's explanation. [see his paper] Personally I think his premise fails entirely since he doesn't address the key question: does implicit faith satisfy the pontiff's requirement to preach Jesus Christ crucified? Even if every Greek present had implicit faith in Acts XVIII, St. Paul still preached Christ crucified, he did not exhort them to pray to Zeus. I think he has had to put words into St. Thomas' mouth to place him amidst the olive plant bearers holding hands at Assisi. St. Thomas would never have had anything to do with it, since it was an event as unconcerned with truth as one can be. My reductio on that will be up in a few days.

Mars Hill was an evangelistic effort that had ecumenical overtones and implications. Assisi I and II were not evangelistic efforts in the first place, but purely ecumenical ones. This accounts for the differences. But the principles of it are contained in Aquinas. The only way you can sustain your critique, then, is to claim that every encounter with someone who differs from us (i.e., a non-Christian) must always be, without exception, an evangelistic foray.

It seems obvious to me that this need not be the case at all. There is a time and a place for everything. Do you spend your entire time at a baseball game or symphony concert evangelizing everyone present? No. Do you bring up Christ crucified every time you are at the cashier in a grocery store, or buying a pair of shoes or withdrawing money via a bank teller? I highly doubt it.

Even the Apostle Paul didn't do this during his trial. He didn't always preach the gospel to the non-Christian Jews. St. Stephen preached the gospel and was stoned for it. Read Acts 22, for example. He touches upon gospel elements (e.g., 22:14-15), but it was by no means a full gospel message, such as he delivered on Mars Hill. He was defending himself against false charges. He does things like appeal to his Roman citizenship (22:27-28).

In the next chapter he discovers that the Jewish high priest is present, but he doesn't preach the gospel to him (23:1-5) and he shows him deference. He calls himself a Pharisee rather than a Christian (23:6). He doesn't preach to the Pharisees or Sadducees, either, that they should be born again, even as Jesus did to the Pharisee Nicodemus. He was trying to save his neck! Acts 22:16-35 shows Paul acting in concert with pagan Roman centurions, to protect him from the irate Jews. Not a word about preaching to them, either. Paul could agree with them on the right to life of a Roman citizen under law. They had that in common, just as ecumenism seeks existing common ground.

Same thing in chapter 24, again, where Paul is acting quite "ecumenical," by downplaying distinctive Christian elements of his message and emphasizing common ground with the Jews (e.g., "I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the law or written in the prophets, having a hope in God . . ." -- 24:14-15). He doesn't evangelize. It wasn't the right time. A Jew could easily agree with this statement of his. It is not an explicitly or distinctively Christian statement at all. Paul is being a great Vatican II Christian, long before his time, which we would expect from his words in 1 Corinthians 9:22, about "being all things to all men." The text says only that he spoke "upon faith in Christ Jesus" privately to Felix and his wife (24:24).

Paul again acts in a "Christian Lite" fashion before Festus: "Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar have I offended at all" (25:8). Paul then appeals to the pagan government: to Caesar (25:10-12). No gospel preaching once again. Doesn't Paul understand that he must do this at all times??!!

Finally before King Agrippa, Paul does a little bit of Christian preaching, though he begins again talking like a Jew (26:4-7) and calls himself a Pharisee once again (26:5). Then he talks "Christian", referring to the Resurrection of Jesus (26:8), mentioning Jesus and his "name" (26:9), salvation and sanctification (26:18) and the heart of the gospel message of salvation (26:23), and finishing up by wishing that all present would become Christians (26:29).

So, sure, he eventually preached the gospel in part of his trial, but he didn't always do so (which is precisely my point, and the false premise in yours), and he deliberately sought common ground with both pagan Romans and Jews. There is a time for ecumenism and a time for preaching the gospel and the message of the fullness of Christian truth in the Catholic Church. Paul did both. We are to imitate him, and so we ought to act likewise.

If you have a right to disagree with the mind of the Church, which is manifestly opposed to modern warfare at all except in extreme defense, (from Ottaviani onward) then I also have a right to oppose the mind of the Church on the practice of ecumenism.

The Church (and Paul in the Bible: Romans 13) gives states the jurisdiction and prerogative to make these decisions, and the right of individuals to differ. It gives counsel as to Catholic ethics in warfare. Reasonable men can differ as to specific application of just war principles. All Catholics must, of course, do their best to comply with those guidelines. With ecumenism, on the other hand, this is within the jurisdiction of the Church. You can disagree with instances as imprudent, but it seems to me that if you consistently disagree with all ecumenical efforts, and/or miscategorize them as indifferentist, then you are hostile to the Mind of the Church.

Well, perhaps you ought to read Mortalium Animos, because Pius XI did in fact condemn the ecumenical movement. You have failed to ask why? Because the ecumenical movement taught false teaching, namely that all religions are basically the same. It originated from outside the Church, as a means of getting all Christians into some kind of reconciled diversity, which covers over doctrine.

Exactly; he condemned indifferentism; so does Vatican II. Yawn and ho-hum. Apples and oranges. He wrote in this document:

8. This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ. Shall We suffer, what would indeed be iniquitous, the truth, and a truth divinely revealed, to be made a subject for compromise? For here there is question of defending revealed truth. . . .

9. . . . How so great a variety of opinions can make the way clear to effect the unity of the Church We know not; that unity can only arise from one teaching authority, one law of belief and one faith of Christians. But We do know that from this it is an easy step to the neglect of religion or indifferentism and to modernism, as they call it. Those, who are unhappily infected with these errors, hold that dogmatic truth is not absolute but relative, that is, it agrees with the varying necessities of time and place and with the varying tendencies of the mind, since it is not contained in immutable revelation, but is capable of being accommodated to human life.

Vatican II and recent popes and Dominus Iesus teach no differently. It's a non-issue.

What changed at Vatican II? The council determined that Ecumenical work conducted with the Church's perennial teaching as its foundation, might serve to avoid the errors of modernism. All fine and good.

I'm delighted to hear that you agree. Nothing fundamentally changed. It was simply a consistent development of the more "open" patristic strain of thought that Fr. William G. Most has documented (and which I have pointed out to you), that always existed alongside a more strict strain of thought. It's the Mind of the Church that determines what in the thought of the Church will become more developed, and stressed. I accept this, in faith, that God knows what He is doing, and is leading His Church. Many "traditionalists" appear not to.

My argument is that in practice, we have seen to much of what Pius XI condemned, and not enough of what the Council suggested be undertaken.

When liberals and modernists undertake such efforts, no doubt your criticisms apply, because their game is to distort and twist Vatican II.

Not every Catholic is suited to dialogue, some people do not understand theology and in dialogue with non-believers, might be converted by them. Some people might mis-represent the Catholic faith unintentionally, some people might not be acquainted with the facts of history and be easily swayed by modernist ideas on what happened during the Crusades, the Inquisition, or the Reformation (revolt).

I wholeheartedly agree with that.

That is why I think true ecumenism (engaging non-Catholics with the hope and prayer of their reunion) should be done by Bishops and Priests, or those who have been approved by the same through correct instruction of the faith.

I agree that the lion's share should be this way. Laymen can also do it if properly instructed.

Unless you mean to claim a council contradicts another is always incorrect, because in matters of discipline we both know this is the case throughout history.

Discipline can change; dogma cannot. Non-issue again . . .

A perfect modern example: Trent says no vernacular, Vatican II says limited vernacular is okay. Contradiction. Solution: The use of vernacular is within the authority of the Church to change, even if it is or is not prudent.

I trust that the Holy Spirit guided the Church to allow vernacular, just as He guided the Church to produce Bible translations in the vernacular. The Father knows best. It takes faith to believe this. That's why many Protestants balk at becoming Catholics. They lack faith. They don't believe God is powerful enough to preserve His Church from error and lead and guide her through history.

First, what are you talking about with Halloween? That is a masonic desecration which our culture has popularized, unless you are referring to the day of the dead, which is coincidentally proximate to All Souls Day, the latter pre-existing the discovery of the New World.

Yes. The Church took over certain customs (mostly Celtic, I believe) and incorporated them into the Communion of Saints, just as it did with Christmas and to some extent, Easter. All have since become greatly secularized in poplar culture, of course, but that has little to do with the Church. Holy Mother Church does this because it is clever and smart to incorporate existing customs, insofar as they are true or harmless. It's a wise understanding if human nature.

Anyhow, on the contrary, I am approaching this like a Catholic. Those practicing the false ecumenism I condemn are not christianizing the acceptable elements of these false religions, they are permitting them in toto, even in Catholic Churches (hindu worship at Fatima, inter-faith chapels at St. Pauls, etc.).

I'd have to see particulars to make a judgment on these things. The one example you showed of some bishop lighting incense (if it was truly to an idol or something), crossed the line; I agree. He has no business doing that.

I have no problem accepting the truth that is in other religions.

Good.

It is when the less acceptable elements of those religions are both permitted and encouraged as some kind of "exchange of gifts".

Okay. Sometimes I would agree, this is objectionable, too.

Notice, St. Paul is preaching Jesus Christ to the men of Athens, and he uses their own Philosophy to attempt a preparation for the Gospel.

But he usually didn't do this during his trial, with Jews and Romans, as I have shown, even though he had opportunity to speak publicly to large audiences.

If the Pope was preaching to Hindus and quoted Gandhi in order to prepare them to accept the true faith, someone would be out of his mind to condemn that.

Good.

But if the Pope encourages their worship to their Hindu gods as they are, for a worldly goal that is not possible in a final sense (peace), that is entirely different.

As far as I know, Pope John Paul II did not do this.

St. Paul did not encourage the continuation of the Greek's prayers to false gods, but advocated they turn to a better way, as communities in Antioch, in Ephesus, in Corinth, and in other particular Churches which he founded had already done.

Of course, He was an evangelist. But even he didn't always evangelize in every situation. And the goodness and necessity of evangelism doesn't wipe out all non-evangelistic ecumenical endeavors.

Does truth matter? Do appearances matter?

Yes. Yes. But truth can be greatly misunderstood and rejected, and appearances are not always what they seem; don't judge a book by its cover, etc. We can't worship at the idol of "appearances" so that we never do anything that would be misunderstood by anyone. For heaven's sake; Catholics can't even bow before a statue of the Blessed Virgin without being accused of idolatry. So we should never do that? Imagine what a Baptist would think of the processions of Corpus Christi! We were told that the proclamation of the Assumption in 1950 would wipe our ecumenical efforts. This obviously didn't happen. The same fears are now being expressed about the Mediatrix dogma being defined. I think there is an argument to be made there, but I am a "non-opportunist." We'll always be misunderstood. It can't be totally avoided.

If so then it does matter that a given event might be perceived as indifferentism.

We do our best not to give such an impression, but some will always wrongly conclude this. Look at "trads"! I've tried to explain the principles behind Assisi but you reject all of it.

I'm not the only person who sees this. Anti-Traditionalist Conservative Vittorio Messori, the Italian journalist who conducted the 1984 interview with the current Holy Father (Ratzinger Report), and who edited Pope John Paul II's Crossing the Threshold of Hope, had this to say when the Pope stripped the Assisi Franciscans of their autonomy:

The Church has a long memory. Joseph Ratzinger has had an account to settle with the friars of Assisi since the inter-religious meeting of 1986. Now he has fixed it. Ratzinger has not forgiven the Franciscan community for the excesses of the first day of prayer of the religious leaders with [Pope John Paul II]. It was a mockery, as many said, that forced the hand of the Pope, and it was the friars who broke the agreement they had made. They went so far as to allow African animists to slaughter chickens on the altar of the basilica of Santa Chiara, and American redskins to dance in the church. (online source) (My emphasis)

That would be an outrageous abuse, yes, which is why the present pope disagreed with it. Do you have evidence that Pope John Paul II himself was aware of the chicken sacrifices? If these clowns "broke the agreement" then it's their fault, not the pope's, no?

It is not only Trads who found something wrong with Assisi. Messori declared further:

Despite the organizers' intentions, the event sent the message that one religion is as good as another... the appearence of relativism eroded the Pontiff's authority on moral issuees like divorce and abortion. If the doctrine of every religion is acceptable to God, why persist in following the Catholic one, which is the most severe and rigid of all? (CWN News briefs, 5 February 2002)

It is obviously not ridiculous, unless you think that Messori and the current Pope are ridiculous.

Okay. Thanks for that information. You've made me curious to investigate a bit further on this.

This is why Fr. Morselli's reasoning is so fallacious, if there is an implicit faith, right here, John Paul II had the opportunity, as St. Paul did in Athens, to make that faith explicit, even if by small gestures. He didn't.

Neither did St. Paul, most of the time at his trial, where he had plenty of opportunity. Why?

He is accepting the fact that folks have different religions. These folks agreed that terrorism was bad and that world peace was good. They came together to express that and make a statement. Folks with different religions pray. The following two propositions (coming, in this scenario, from Pope John Paul II) are not identical:

1) I am commissioning you to pray to your false gods and idols and expressing my agreement with this action, as equally valid as Christian prayer.

2) I am recognizing that you are a religious person as I am [Acts 17:22]. Though we disagree on many things, we agree on world peace. Let's come together, therefore, and pray as we all believe in good faith, in separate rooms: the Christians in a church and the non-Christians in a nearby location, for the purpose of world peace.

#1 sanctions false religion; #2 does not at all. #2 is what Pope John Paul the Great did. #1 is the "traditionalist" caricature of what he did. Thomas Aquinas explains the relevant distinction here, if anyone would just read the paper defending Assisi by Fr. Morselli.

The problem is that 1 and 2 are the same.

They're not at all, which suggests to me that you have not grasped the crucial distinctions made by St. Thomas Aquinas, as noted and commented upon by Fr. Morselli.

These are not unbelievers living in their own countries with no missionary present to reveal true faith to them who are doing their level headed best to uphold God's honor and trust in a savior. These are not unbelievers praying on the street whom we might encounter and respectfully observe or dialogue with. This is not a question of whether or not the unbeliever is damned because he doesn't manifest explicit faith in Christ. All of the quotes from St. Thomas that Fr. Morselli provides deal with the salvation of the unbeliever, not whether the vicar of Christ can call them to Christian sites and then provide rooms for them to worship when the opportunity is present to bring them from implicit faith to explicit faith. That is the key difference, and the key reason why what John Paul II did at Assisi was not great.

You neglect to see that the principles from Aquinas do apply in this case, as Fr. Morselli showed.
And you labor under the fallacy that evangelism must be done all the time there is any opportunity at all to do so, that is contradicted even by St. Paul, and I dare say, very likely in your own life (certainly mine, and I am an evangelist and apologist by vocation) as well. Even Jesus didn't do this. Did He preach the gospel to the Roman centurion, whose servant He healed? No. Jesus also stated that He deliberately made things harder for some people to understand (meaning that He didn't always preach the same message in absolutely every circumstance):

Matthew 13:10-13 Then the disciples came and said to him, "Why do you speak to them in parables?" And he answered them, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For to him who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.

Jesus taught that some will refuse to repent, even after being given extraordinary miracles as a witness:

Luke 16:27-31 And he said, `Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house, for I have five brothers, so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.' But Abraham said, `They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.' And he said, `No, father Abraham; but if some one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' He said to him, `If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead.'"

So not only was the message not preached, it was outright refused. It's indirect and it is a special case, but the principle still has wider application: preaching the gospel or some Christian message does not have to occur at all times in every place and circumstance. if that premise is accepted (as it seems it must be, based on Scripture), then it is possible to engage in ecumenical endeavors, without compromise of one's own beliefs, without necessarily seeking conversion in every instance. it can still be the ultimate goal but it doesn't have to take place every time there is some meeting about anything where people can agree.

No, your fallacy is in not recognizing that good intentions don't correct or account for a bad action.

Whether it is a bad action in and of itself is precisely what is in dispute. Being misunderstood does not render a thing intrinsically bad if it is in fact, good. Appearances can be very deceiving. For example, someone (a hypothetical) could be caught in a motel room, seemingly kissing a woman not his wife, on a bed. Was he sinning? Actually no; he heard a woman gasping for breath in the next room over and he (being a medic-type) rushed over to give her mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. Did he sin? Absolutely not. He saved her life. But it looked terrible, didn't it? So does he not save her life, to avoid any appearance of sin? Nope. He does it because it is a good thing.

Likewise, does the Church not engage in ecumenical activities for the sake of world peace, because many "trads" and anti-Catholic Protestants have nothing better to do than run these things down and say that great popes shouldn't be canonized because they participated? No. The good achieved overcomes misunderstandings that are almost inevitable among some, anyway, due to their presuppositions and false premises.

If I had a female friend, and I told my wife that I was going to help her find peace in her life, but no adultery is involved, since I can only do this in accordance with my marital vows, how in God's name do you think that makes her feel more comfortable about my action, which is obviously something different? Even if nothing does happen, the action suggests something, and therefore it would be prudent and avoid the appearance of impropriety.

My example works better, because it is more clear-cut. :-) Yours is too vague.

Well, what else took place in those private rooms [in Assisi]? They weren't playing Texas hold 'em.

Folks were exercising their own religious beliefs. How does that compromise Catholic belief? If I have a Muslim friend staying with me and it is time for his routine prayers and he goes aside and prays, am I now compromised in my Catholic faith? No. Perhaps you would say I was. But how does his religious observance somehow suggest mine is not what it is, simply because he is in proximity to me, in another room, praying to Allah? It does not at all. I'm not participating in it. I haven't adopted indifferentism in so doing. It makes no difference that it is in my house. He can be on the same block that I live on. He's over there doing his thing and I'm doing mine.

I'm not forced to caricature it at all. It was what it was.

So far all you've produced was some stray Franciscans who apparently broke their word and engaged in acts without the approval of the pope. All that shows is that they had a problem, not the wrongness of the concept of the whole thing. There may be more problems that could be brought out, but this is not enough to make me change my mind about it, simply because someone abused the procedures.

You say you shouldn't criticize a Pope and that Trads do it too much,

I assert the latter, not the former. I have papers about the former, expressly agreeing that there are times to do this.

I will agree that some trads do too much.

Good. I think you're among them. :-)

You seem to have a problem whenever a Traditionalist suggests a member of the hierarchy went too far,

Nope; only when I think fallacious reasoning is being employed, and only when it is a relentless questioning based on false premises or knee jerk reactions.

and that was the point of my translating those points from St. Thomas on why a subject can criticize one higher.

No need to convince me because I already knew and accepted this.

There is a danger to faith if such things go unchallenged. I have known people who took the Pope's action to mean that all religions are as good as another.

People believe lots of stupid things. You had an opportunity to educate these people, because you know yourself that this was neither his intention, nor what Vatican II and his own ecumenical encyclicals teach.

Our Lord Himself was accused of casting out demons by Beelzebub (Matthew 12:24). John the Baptist was accused of being demon-possessed (Luke 7:33), and Jesus, of other things: