"Ex ore tuo, judico!"

That is to say, "I judge from your own words." On January 21, 1996, there were gathered in St. Petersburg, Florida, a group of Lithuanians. It was not just an ordinary gathering. It was a religious service held by those who perceive themselves as loyal, faithful Roman Catholics. Among them, also, were non-Catholics who also perceive themselves to be loyal, faithful Christians allied to the doctrines of Martin Luther. The Catholics, doubtless, considered themselves `good Catholics' and obedient to their Franciscan pastor, Fr. Stephen Ropolas, who likewise perceives himself to be a Roman Catholic.

Present at this `ecumenical service' were other Franciscans. One of them, Rev. Paul Baltakis, perceives himself to have been validly consecrated a Bishop for all the Roman Catholic Lithuanians outside of Lithuania proper. This is his perception. It does not, thereby, make him a valid Bishop of the Roman Catholic Church. It is only a perception. And, because Rev. Baltakis has been connected with the Lithuanian Franciscans, because his picture has been published and because this perception has been promoted among unsuspecting Roman Catholics, he is perceived by the masses of people still calling themselves `Roman Catholic' as that which he appears to be. Of course, intelligent people know that appearances are often deceiving.

Consequently, the people perceive Fr. Stephen as a Roman Catholic priest; they also perceive the mitered man standing next to him as `Bishop' Paul Baltakis.

In the very same way, the people whose self-perception as Roman Catholics is extended to Rev. M. Kirkilis, to Rev. A. Simanavicius and to anyone else present who is not equally self-perceived as a Lutheran. In reality, that is, in actual fact, who are these people?

Is their mutual self-perception a true one? Are they truly that, which they perceive themselves to be?

It is imperative that our perceptions correspond to objective reality and not merely to our own subjective fancies. After all, a stinkweed does not become a rose simply by calling it a rose.

An understanding of this psychological phenomenon called "perception" is essential to the understanding of what transpires around us. It is important for our own benefit also because it clarifies our own position. It bursts the bubble of illusion.

What is perception?

Perception is often confused with sensation. But there is a very important difference. Using the language of psychology, perception is defined as "the cognizing of the object which produces the sensation."

Sensation refers only to the stimulus producing the sensation. Perception, on the other hand, always has reference to the object, or, thing, furnishing the stimulus.

This distinction is essential to understanding objective reality.

In sensation, we become conscious of the stimulation of a sense organ, (the eye, for example) purely as such. In perception, we become conscious of the object actively engaged in the stimulation of the sense organ.

Let us use an example: When we look at a rose, we see the color `red.' The stimulus of light has produced in the organ of sight (the eyes) the conscious experience of `red.' The sensation of color does not tell me what the thing is. It only tells me it is `red.'

From the standpoint of perception, I see `a globe-shaped object at the end of a thorny stem with leaves.' I refer the color `red' to this object and this relationship tells me the object is a `rose.'

The mere fact that I saw `red' does not tell me that the object is a `rose.' That knowledge was acquired before through some other process of knowing.

Let us apply this same truth to the sense of smell. If someone were to hold an object to me and say: "Smell this. What do you smell?" If my answer is: "I smell something fragrant," I am telling that person of my sensation. However, if I say: "A rose," I am telling him of my perception.

We are always dealing with sensations and perceptions. Are our perceptions always correct? That is to say, are the objects which we perceive, truly that, which they are perceived to be?

Let us use an example that is critical to our present considerations. In a photograph, we see the images of individuals arrayed in familiar vestments. The stimuli present color and shape. These shapes (forms) suggest that the images represent individuals who are dressed in the customary garb of vested clergymen. Priest or Bishop, the familiar garb creates a perception. We associate, refer or relate, the stimuli to objects which we know from past experience to be `Roman Catholic clergymen, priest or bishop.' Therefore, seeing such persons thus attired, we have the perception that they are what they seem to be.

But, is the perception a valid one? People have seen the well-known cinema actor, Anthony Quinn, dressed in white in a film called "Shoes of the Fisherman." The actor merely portrayed a Roman Catholic Pope. He dressed in a white soutane, wore a pectoral cross and all the other symbols associated with a Pope of the Roman Catholic Church. All those who viewed the film perceived a Pope!

Was Anthony Quinn a Pope? Of course not. Why not? We all knew that Anthony Quinn was not a Pope, even though he was perceived as a Pope, because we knew that this was only make-believe. Playing the part of a Pope on the stage is quite different from playing the part of a Pope in real life. We immediately understand the difference, don't we?

Perceptions always involve past sensations of the same and of different kinds and combine them in the recognition of the object which caused them.

"Things are not always as they seem." "Not everything that glitters is gold." These and many other adages are born of man's realization that perceptions are not always true to reality, but have been artificially created to deceive the mind into accepting as true, that which is false.

In everyday life, we occupy ourselves with perceptions. This being the case, it is necessary that we proceed with caution and not accept as genuine, those perceptions that may simply be artfully produced for the purpose of deception.

The purpose of this article is to unmask the deceptive perception which cloaks itself with the respectable cloak of charity, but which is, in reality, a gruesome caricature of religion and charity.

Since our concern here is a religious one, and specifically a Catholic one, we wish to know whether or not the individuals named are, indeed, Roman Catholic. Not only that, but we have a right to know whether they are Roman Catholic because WE claim to be Roman Catholics and there is a disparity in their representation of Roman Catholicism and that which we represent as Roman Catholicism.

We claim that they are heretics and schismatics from the Roman Catholic Church. Certainly, these individuals resent us for maintaining our claim because they wish to be perceived by themselves and others around them as representative of the Roman Catholic Church.

It is imperative that we all come to an understanding of what constitutes the Roman Catholic Church and who are its visible members. I say that it is `imperative' because there can be only one true religion that leads souls to a union with God. There is only one Baptism, one Faith, and one Christ.

It is further imperative for us to know who's who because it was that same Jesus Christ _ claimed by so many differing doctrines and sects _ Who has said: "Not everyone who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of my Father in heaven, shall enter the kingdom heaven." (Matt. 7, 21).

This same Jesus Christ continues: "Many will say in that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and work many miracles in thy name?' And then I will declare to them, `I never knew you. Depart from me, you workers of iniquity."(Ibid. 7,22-23).

Note well who is saying this! It is not one of the Apostles; it is not anyone but Jesus Christ Himself ! "I will declare to them," Jesus says. "I never knew you" is what Jesus Christ Himself will say!

And it is this same Jesus Christ Who commissioned His Apostles to go throughout the whole world to teach what He has taught; to teach the world to do the things which Jesus commanded. It was Jesus Himself Who told the Apostles that those who believe and are baptized will be saved; and those who do not believe will be condemned. Now, we stand before those who claim to represent this same Jesus Christ and in the name of His Church, the Roman Catholic Church. Not only that, but under the illusion of bringing heretics into the true Church, these individuals have no shame to lower themselves to the level of heretics. One does not destroy error by embracing it.

Before presenting the detailed refutation of the ecumenical mind-set of all those present at the `ecumenical service' held in St. Petersburg, FL on January 21, 1996, let us consider some fundamental truths.

First of all, the Protestant revolution in doctrine and the Orthodox revolution in society were not superficial matters to Christianity. They touched the very properties of the Church's being and injured them.

To deny a series of dogmas and the official teaching authority of the Church means to lose whatever might make it possible for man to discern error.

If the Catholic Church was in error for over fifteen centuries, what guarantee do we have that the Lutheran Church is not in error? For the sake of argument, let us suppose that Martin Luther was subjectively a very religious man. Regardless of all that, objectively, he betrayed his Church into the hands of the Antichrist. He did this by destroying in it the Rock upon which Christ built His Church, and against which the gates of hell would not prevail. Every Protestant sect is nothing more than a capitulation of Catholics into the hands of the Antichrist and a denial of Jesus Christ's only Church against which the gates of hell shall not prevail.

Consequently, any `dialogue' with Protestantism is a dialogue with the Antichrist. It is as futile as trying to save Satan from the fires of hell. This is the reason that Protestants have not converted to Catholicism, but that Catholics have become Protestants!

The same is true for the Orthodox. The Orthodox, basically, became schismatics because they refused the visible authority of the Pope. They betrayed Jesus Christ when they gave to Caesar that which belongs only to God. They did not deny dogmas (at least not at first) nor the teaching authority of the Church. What they did was to destroy that unity for which Jesus prayed by rejecting the Rock upon which Jesus based true social unity.

The unity of the Blessed Trinity was to shine forth in the Church and to be a visible sign of the divine. The Orthodox separated themselves from this unity, and in this way denied Christ's will, and thereby erased that sign whereby the world was to believe that Christ was sent by His heavenly Father and the historical Church was truly founded by Him.

The Orthodox Church renounced universality and shut itself up in its own narrow circle.

The separation of the Protestant and Orthodox churches from the Roman Catholic Church is very deep. The basis of this separation is not merely a matter of human differences. It is not merely caused by some historical misunderstandings, nor by some personality clashes nor because of some error. No. The real cause for the separation of Protestant and Orthodox churches is their submission to the forces of antichrist, thereby destroying Christ's original teaching and destroying original unity.

Therefore, to consider oneself a Protestant, an Orthodox and a true Catholic and not to recognize the cause for these divisions is to fail to see in the Church anything of deeper meaning. And this is the essence of present day `ecumenism:'

Present day ecumenism seeks to make human concessions for the sake of unity based on religious indifference.

It is the work of the Antichrist and not the work of the Holy Ghost. They serve only to make a mockery of true unity, while pretending to bring everyone into a closer unity with Jesus Christ and His mystical Body, the Roman Catholic Church, and thereby, truly reflecting in their union the unity of the Blessed Trinity.

The different Churches can only be united on the foundation of the fullness of Christ's teaching. Religious indifference _ most significantly expressed by these Catholic `turn-coats' _ is nothing more than a shameful ridicule of genuine unity.

The meeting in St. Petersburg, FL is a typical example of the religious indifference permeating the Apostate Church headed by the Polish actor, Karol Wojtyla. Let us observe how much truth there is in all their pietistic prattle:

Observe: Rev. Paul Baltakis addresses the assembly as "Dear brothers and sisters in Christ." This is both charming and touching. It's no different from a politician running for office and willing to flatter anyone to get a vote. No doubt, Rev. Baltakis desires to be accepted by these people because he does not have much concern for the teaching and practice of the Roman Catholic Church which is founded on the prophets and the apostles, as St. Paul testifies.

"Dear brothers and sisters in Christ"?!?

How much truth is there in this statement? Are those people gathered at a heretical religious service really "brothers and sisters in Christ"?

What does Jesus say about "brothers and sisters"? The crowd listening to Jesus had said to Him: "Behold, thy mother and thy brethren are outside, seeking thee." (Mark 3, 31-35). What did Jesus answer? He said to them: "Who are my mother and my brethren?" Then gazing out about Him at the people assembled, He said: "Behold my mother and my brethren. For whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and my sister and my mother."

Are heretics our "brothers and sisters in Christ"? If we accept the ideas of Rev. Baltakis, Mr. Eugene Gerulis and all the other `clergymen' and laypeople gathered at this ecumenical service, we can only conclude that Jesus Christ Himself was a fake and that Pope Pius XII and all the other Roman Catholic Popes before him were completely ignorant and stupid. This is the alternative that you and I must choose, if we agree with Baltakis, Gerulis, Simanavicius, Ropolas, Cyvas and Kirkilas _ all of whom are titled "priest" by the newspaper once called "Catholic": DRAUGAS, published in Chicago, IL by the Marian Fathers.

Rev. Baltakis claims that Pope Benedict XV "approved the ecumenical movement" _ implying that this Pope's decree establishing the "Church Unity Octave" was a `green light' for heretics to brainwash Catholics with their senseless blasphemies. Benedict approved embracing and tolerating heresy for the sake of `unity?' On the contrary, Pope Benedict would disagree with Mr. Gerulis whom Baltakis enthusiastically praised. Consider for a moment these words of Pope Benedict XV (Allocution, Rome, May 16, 1870): "But for religious truths, there is progress only in their development, their penetration, their practice: in themselves they remain essentially immutable." Without a doubt, when Mr. Gerulis poses the question of his sermon to Catholics "Can truth be frozen into dogmas?" Pope Benedict XV has already answered the question in 1870.

In order to save time and space, we will already condemn with the words of Pope Benedict XV men like Baltakis, Gerulis, Simanavicius, Ropolas, Bagdonavicius, etc. This Catholic Pope clearly declared: "If anyone say that with the progress of science, it could happen that we must give to the dogmas proposed by the Church a different meaning from what the Church has understood and does understand, let him be anathema."

It should not come as a surprise that the anti-Pope John XXIII would pretend that `charity' precludes the condemnation of obstinate heretics with anathemas.

Baltakis addresses the assembly with this wish: "Brothers and sisters, with Christ's and our common offering, let us ask God, that each in his own way may join ourselves in the realization of Christ's prayer at the Last Supper: "Father, that they may be one, as we are one: I in them and Thou in me, that they might reach perfect union and that the world would know, that Thou hast sent me'" .

Supposedly, Baltakis is quoting from Scripture. But there is something strange about this quotation. It seems to ring true. Yet, there is something amiss here. Verifying the accuracy of the text, we find that there is a subtle difference in the Gospel of St. John and that which Baltakis attributes to St. John.

St. John writes, quoting our Lord's prayer for unity: " that all may be one, even as thou, Father, in me and I in thee; that they also may be one in us, that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory that thou hast given me, I have given to them, that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them and thou in me; that they may be perfected in unity, and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and that thou hast loved them even as thou has loved me."

Jesus is praying for His Apostles and for those who would believe in Jesus through their preaching. It may be added: through the infallible preaching and teaching of the Roman Catholic Church in Her sacred teaching authority.

It is an absurdity to even suggest that heretics can possibly be meant by Jesus in His prayer for unity. Much less can it be suggested that heretics may some how realize this `unity' "each in his own way." "Each in his own way"? What on earth can that possibly mean? To the unthinking, it sounds so nice and seductively protective of individual opinion. "Each in his own way" _ not each according to the will of Jesus Christ and the demands of supernatural faith. No. "Each in his own way" _ each according to the perverse suggestions of obstinate self-will that goes so far as to impose upon the intellect to formulate and accept error.

This is the kind of `ecumenism' Baltakis and his ilk favor and promote in the name of false charity.

Before leaving Baltakis and his fellow-heretics, let us clarify and strengthen our understanding of just who are our true "brothers and sisters in Christ." No better nor closer authority in this matter can be found other than the last true Pope of the Roman Catholic Church: Pope Pius XII (died 1958).

Knowing what the Modernist heretics were planning, this great and loyal Pope wrote the Encyclical Letter, Mystical Body of Jesus Christ. In this Encyclical Letter which must be accepted as an infallible teaching of the ordinary Magisterium on this point, the Pope says:

"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. `for in one spirit,' says the Apostle, `were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.' As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered _ so the Lord commands _ as a heathen and a publican. 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."

Please take the trouble to read the above again, very slowly and thoughtfully. Do not think that you know what the Church teaches in these matters if you do not understand fully what is said in the words of Pope Pius XII.

Note well: Those who are separated from the Body of the Church (the Roman Catholic Church) cannot be living the life of its one Divine Spirit!

These former Catholic clergymen, so zealous in pleasing heretics and fawning over them, are by virtue of the Laws of the Church excommunicated. They are heretics like the heretics they embrace with their fallen charity. They are not in the Body of the Church, nor can it be said that they are living the life of its one Divine Spirit.

In other words, heretics and schismatics do not participate in supernatural grace. Their ecumenism is not of God, but of the devil.

Mr. Gerulis, in his `sermon' to Catholics and Protestants alike, states that the "Pope himself" has spoken out for `diversity.' Gerulis attributes to John-Paul II the idea that "diversity leads Christianity into unspeakable spiritual treasures found in Christ's Gospel." (Cfr."Crossing the Threshold of Hope", pp. 152-155).

Rev. Vytautas Bagdonavicius, obviously never having suffered the cross of Communism in his homeland of Lithuania, is equally comfortable praising Protestantism as he was praising Communism. Mr. Gerulis says: "Rev. Vytautas Bagdonavicius, underlining the value of diversity, writes: `The Lutheran movement of Christian individualism is the creator of all modern culture."

"And the reformers," continues Rev. Bagdonavicius, "representing the idea of the mystical Body of Christ, delved into that reality, which constitutes the union of the faithful with one another."

Mr. Gerulis makes the following astonishing statement: "Pope Pius XII, availing himself of the experience of the reformers, wrote the encyclical in 1943 concerning the mystical body of Christ, as the foundation for the Church's structure."

Comment: We have already observed that Pope Pius XII states that heretics are not only outside the Body of the Church, but cannot even be living by the grace of the Holy Ghost, its Divine Spirit. How then, does this man, Gerulis, attribute Pope Pius XII's doctrinal teaching on the mystery of the Church as coming from heretics? We do know, however, that Satan is the father and teacher of all heretics; we also know that Satan is the Father of lies.

Mr. Gerulis further quotes from this Rev. Bagdonavicius: "According to the view of Rev. Bagdonavicius, the concept of Lutheran human freedom as well as the meaning of solidarity among the reformers are great values for all Christianity. For this reason, `Catholic Christianity can and must learn from them and as a matter of fact, has already learned much.'"(DRAUGAS,, 1987,5.2))It's all in the perception. However, the perception is a false one.

It must also be stated that the preacher at this ecumenical service was Mr. Eugene Gerulis. Mr. Gerulis was introduced by `Bishop' Baltakis in the warmest terms, to wit: "honored Reformed Evangelical priest, doctor Eugene Gerulis." Since when were reformed evangelicals `priests' is not clear at all. Generally, these are Lutherans. Perhaps the Rev. Baltakis has ecumenized himself into believing the Protestant heresy of the "priesthood of the faithful"?

In his address, Rev. Baltakis points out that " although Lithuanians are by nature very conservative, nevertheless great progress has been made on the way to Christian unity." What are some of these points of "great progress"? The self-styled `Bishop' _ (Not a valid Bishop of the Roman Catholic Church because consecrated according to the invalid rite of John Baptist Montini) _ points to the `common' edition of the New Testament. He makes allusion to the "ecumenical edition' of the Holy Scriptures.

Mr. Eugene Gerulis, presented as a `priest', gave the sermon at this `ecumenical service.'

The theme of his sermon was "Can Truth Be Frozen into Dogmas?"

Prior to beginning his sermon, Mr. Gerulis bows his head and prays the following prayer which he, as is customary to Protestants, probably composed himself.

He gives `praise' to Jesus Christ:

"Praised be Jesus Christ!" A heretic who denies whatever this same Jesus Christ and His Church proclaimed and does not suit him. Can this man invoke the Name of Jesus without supernatural grace? I doubt it. If he utters the Name of Jesus, it is only a cruel blasphemy.

But, Mr. Gerulis continues his prayer, nevertheless _ who cares that this man obscures with his pietistic prattle objective, metaphysical reality! It's all in the perception. He thinks he is addressing Jesus Christ; the people think he is addressing Jesus Christ, and therefore, he must be addressing Jesus Christ simply because this is the visible perception. Because he appears to be addressing Jesus Christ, does this mean that he actually is addressing Jesus Christ? And, if so, do you think that Jesus Christ recognizes Mr. Gerulis?

Most probably not. But, who cares what Jesus thinks, anyway? After all, He did not strike every heretic dead, so the probability of His striking any of those present at this ecumenical service would be extremely remote.

"Let us pray: Our beloved God, the Father! Bless, Oh Lord, our common ecumenical efforts. Enlighten our minds and hearts, that our common action would serve the honor of Thy Name, the good of the Church and for the general joy of all Christians. This we humbly pray of Thee, through our Lord and Brother Jesus Christ. Amen."

After this `prayer,' Mr. Gerulis begins:

"Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,"

A few months ago, in the city of Kecsekmet, Hungary, there took place an ecumenical conference. One hundred and eighty delegates from twenty countries participated. Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants took part.

Among the resolutions adopted by this conference, one of them states that the variety of ideas and convictions enriches the Church. That we ought to, and we must maintain a spiritual friendship and that we must get to know one another. Knowledge draws people and Churches together. (I Cor.12: 12-27).

Typical of those whose faith is not enlivened with the life of the Divine Spirit, only a natural understanding and application of the Holy Scriptures is possible. As a consequence, we see misapplication of Scripture to justify an erroneous position. This is the case when we seek to understand in what sense application is sought for the words of St. Paul to the Corinthians in I Corinthians, 12, 12- 27. St. Paul is not speaking of heretical sects that differ in their doctrines. He is speaking to Catholics who are called by grace to different positions in the one Church. St. Paul compares the difference within the one Mystical Body of Jesus Christ to the various parts of the human body.

At no time does St. Paul condone or excuse the lapse into heresy and schism which Mr. Gerulis and his companions would like to palliate.

Mr. Gerulis quotes from the Modernist `Jesuit' Avery Dulles. Avery Dulles is one of those `wonder boys' whose parental prestige was more important to the good Jesuit Fathers than the vocation of their son. His infiltration of the Catholic Church has served Avery's Masonic friends well. Dulles is quoted by Gerulis as stating "that from the Middle Ages to the First Vatican Council, the proclamations issuing from Rome were framed in solemn, grandiose, triumphalist phrases. They were, one would say, thundering and fiery curses, excommunications! Now, since Vatican II, the style of Rome has become calm, modest, meek, fatherly brother-like."

It is understandable that the proud and erring dislike with demonic passion their denunciation after every mild attempt to bring them back to the path of truth and orthodoxy has failed.. Gerulis, as a typical heretic guided by the spirit of error, would find Avery Dulles' snide remarks most tasty to his viper-like tongue.

The Church's magisterium has the right and duty to speak solemnly on solemn matters; the Magisterium of the Church has the right and duty to thunder against hardened heretics whose consummate pride knows no limits and seeks only to destroy unsuspecting souls. When there is serious danger, no one whispers a warning; one shouts as loud as one can. As for `excommunications,' this is exactly what the heretic fears most. Not because he fears being outside the source of salvation _ he no longer believes this in his mind and heart and will. No. The heretic hates the word `excommunication' and not the idea. He hates the word because it warns the unsuspecting to stay away from the heretic, whether layman, priest, or bishop. The heretic is already separated interiorly from the Church and the source of divine life.

Gerulis is not a Christian despite all his pretense and pious prattle. He is a heretic. In vain does he seek some kind of objective validity. Only because our Lithuanian Franciscans and clergy have themselves become heretics does Gerulis enjoy a greater infamy than before. Now he is even invited by those who say they are `Catholic' to further solidify them in their apostasy from the Roman Catholic Church.

Mr. Gerulis is asked: "Has ecumenism brought anything new to Protestantism?"

Mr. Gerulis answers: "In the Spring of 1995, I attended the international conference of the Reformed Evangelical Church, where I represented members of that Church outside of their country. What did I observe that was new?

1. Until now, the world's reformed Church looked quite harshly at the crucifix, saying: `Christ has risen, so why should we keep Him nailed to the cross?' At the conference, I noticed that the view of the Reformed towards the Cross is changing. Some of the delegates were already wearing little crosses with the Crucified.

Comment: Is this not a great concession on the part of the Reformed! Especially when we see that so many Catholics have thrown out the Crucifix from their homes and from their churches. What a great step forward in `ecumenism'!

2. Until now, Protestants did not recognize Tradition and strictly adhered to the principle of `Sola Scriptura.' At the Conference, I noticed that the attitude of the Reformed towards Tradition was mellowing.

3. Until now and even now, Protestants do not agree with the cult which is given to honor Mary, and for this reason Mary was looked upon as an `unknown land.' But now, as a result of ecumenism, the person of Mary and the cult of Mary are no longer viewed as the same thing. That is why, although the view concerning the cult of Mary is not changed, the view of Mary's noble personage is changing.

Comment: How can there be any real honor for Mary's person if the honor paid by Catholics to her person is denied? Because they do not honor Mary in their hearts, they cannot even honor her on their lips.

4. Until now, the Reformed and Lutherans avoided referring to their hierarchy as `bishops.' Now, influenced by ecumenism, the term `bishop' is beginning to come back in Protestant countries. More quickly among the Lutherans; more slowly among the Reformed.

Comment: It makes little real difference what Protestants call themselves. They are neither priests nor bishops authorized to teach, sanctify and govern in the name of Jesus Christ. If they were to return to the fold from whence their ancestors tore them, they would be received as the laymen that they are.

5. It is regrettable that in the mass, the joy and thanksgiving of Communion is still covered with the shadow of suffering and sacrifice; that with the passing of centuries, the original Eucharist became transformed into the Host.

Comment: Instead of `ecumenism' bringing the fallen away to accept the mystery of faith, the Real Presence, the heretics merely use this opening to Catholics to continue the promotion of their abominable heresy. The pride and spiritual blindness of Mr. Gerulis is only too evident of his lack of supernatural grace and faith. Obviously, these Franciscans have no problem with that, in view of the fact that they have blindly accepted the Lutheran communion service to replace the true Sacrifice of Calvary.

Truly, Wojtyla's ecumenism is fruitful! It is fruitful for the Antichrist, but not for Jesus Christ.

We will continue this examination of the effects of ecumenism on Catholics and Protestants. This particular event among Lithuanians is treated here with the hope that some Lithuanians might realize the terrible situation of their country which suffered so much from atheistic Communism for the true Faith. Now, almost the entirety of the country has fallen into the camp of the Antichrist by following the Apostate Bishops among them.

It is a source of grave, diabolical scandal for those clergymen, namely, Revs. Baltakis, Ropolas, Simanavicius, etc. not only to be present at such `ecumenical' religious services, but all the more so to cooperate in their organization. The scandal is certain because the faithful Catholics, following the example of their clergy, assume there is nothing wrong in violating their conscience by seeing nothing wrong in heresy.

Participation in religious worship takes place when Catholics take part in non-Catholic services or permit non-Catholics to participate in Catholic services.

Participation of Catholics in non-Catholic services may mean that Catholics actually take part in the religious worship of non-Catholics or that they are only passively present at their sacred services.

The natural law forbids participation in services that are heretical. If the service is one that heretics have in common with us, even though no scandal comes from such participation, it is at least forbidden by Church Law.

It is, therefore, forbidden for a heretic to preach in a Catholic religious service. It is even forbidden to sing, play the organ or other instruments in the religious services of non-Catholics.

Whoever acts contrary to the prescriptions of Canon 1258 and takes part in non-Catholic services is suspected of heresy. (C.2316).

Participation of non-Catholics in Catholic services is forbidden in as far as it gives the impression that there is no essential difference between Catholic and non-Catholic faith or promotes indifferentism.

As for the ecumenical service conducted in St. Petersburg, FL, because it provides an opportunity for a heretical minister to sow doubt in the minds of Catholics, because the presence and active participation in such a service definitely promotes religious indifferentism, such participation is gravely sinful.

In the continuation of this subject, we will see the disastrous results this `ecumenism' has produced.

Return to Contents

Return to Homepage.