ONAIYEKAN’S “CHURCH”: A CATHOLIC EXAMINATION.

 

What is this “church” that Onaiyekan’s calls “my Church” ?
It certainly CANNOT be the One, Holy, Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church! Or, can it?

Prologue: When the Catholic name remains, but the Catholic Faith is contradicted

Someone drew my attention to a news update about a high ranking member of the modernist hierarchy occupying Catholic buildings in Nigeria: “Cardinal” Onaiyekan, by sending me a link. Attached to the link was a forwarded comment:

“Just see the nonsense he is saying. The heresy of Vatican II teachings”

The “nonsense” reads thus:

“My Church Said We Believe In Same God With Jews, Muslims And Other Religions Who Call On God” — Onaiyekan

No one with a modicum of informed Catholic common sense would deny that this statement is “nonsense”, don’t you think so too? 

The report has it that this statement was made in an interview with Symfoni TV while commenting on the state of the nation. And, he described this belief as the mainstream teaching of Christianity and Islam while reckoning those who maintain otherwise as a small minority.

That claim deserves a serious Catholic examination. 

You see? For a Catholic, the decisive question is not:

• how many supposed religious leaders agree with a proposition, 
• how popular it has become, 
• or how useful it may appear for interreligious harmony. 
• The decisive question is: Is it true, and does it agree with the Catholic Faith as it was taught before the modernist revolution?

But there is a more fundamental question behind the controversy:

• What is this “Church” that Onaiyekan calls “my Church,” 
• and can an institution contradicting the Catholic Faith still claim to be the Catholic Church simply because it occupies Catholic buildings and retains Catholic titles?

Yes. Is Onaiyekan’s “church” truly the Catholic Church?

Let us examine the matter closely. 

1. ONE GOD DOES NOT MEAN ONE RELIGION

Catholic philosophy teaches that there is only one true God, the Creator of heaven and earth. He is not one deity among many. He is eternal, infinite, omnipotent, and absolutely perfect.

The Catholic Church does not teach that Christians worship one supreme Creator while Jews and Muslims necessarily intend to address entirely different supreme creators.

Nevertheless, the question of the identity of God must not be confused with the question of knowing Him truly, accepting His revelation, and worshipping Him according to the truth.

A person may intend to refer to the Creator while holding erroneous beliefs about Him. The fact that two people use the word God does not establish that their respective religious beliefs are equally true.

Consider the central Christian confession:

“I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.” — John 14:6. 

Our Lord Jesus Christ does not present Himself as one religious teacher among many, each offering an equally valid path to the same destination. He identifies Himself as the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

The question, therefore, cannot be settled by observing that Christians and Muslims both profess monotheism. It must be examined in the light of what God has revealed through His Son.

2. WHAT DOES THE MUSLIM RELIGION PROFESS ABOUT GOD?

Islam professes the unity of God but denies the Blessed Trinity and the divine Sonship of Jesus Christ.

Catholicism, on the other hand, professes one God in three Divine Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

The difference is fundamental.

The Catholic does not believe that Jesus Christ is a creature whom God merely favoured with prophetic authority. He believes that Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God, consubstantial with the Father, who took flesh for our salvation.

The Muslim rejects that divine Sonship.

These contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense.

St John writes:

“Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father.” — 1 John 2:23. 

This is not a minor disagreement over religious terminology. It concerns the very revelation of God in Jesus Christ.

Consequently, even when a Muslim intends to worship the one Creator, his intention does not make Islam a true revelation from God or render its denial of Christ compatible with Catholic doctrine.

A shared profession of monotheism is not a shared profession of the Catholic Faith.

3. WHAT ABOUT THE JEWS?

The God who spoke to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is the one true God revealed in the New Testament. Christianity does not replace the Creator of the Old Testament with another deity.

The difference is that the Catholic Faith recognises Jesus Christ as the promised Messiah and the eternal Son of God, the fulfilment of the Old Testament revelation.

Judaism, insofar as it rejects Christ as the promised Messiah and denies His divine Sonship, rejects truths which Christianity proclaims as definitively revealed by God.

The Catholic therefore cannot reduce the question to a vague assertion that both religions invoke the same God and that their differences are secondary.

Our Lord’s identity matters. His Incarnation matters. His Passion, Resurrection, and divine authority matter.

If Christ is who He says He is, then rejecting Him is not an inconsequential alternative interpretation of the same religion.

The same principle applies to Islam’s rejection of the Christian revelation.

4. WHAT DID THE PRE-VATICAN II CHURCH TEACH?

Pope Pius XI addressed religious indifferentism in his 1928 encyclical Mortalium Animos.

He wrote:

“There can be no true religion other than that which is founded on the revealed word of God.” [Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, 6 January 1928, §2.]

The Pope rejected the notion that religions could be treated as different but equally acceptable expressions of humanity’s religious instinct.

The traditional Catholic position is not that every non-Catholic person is necessarily insincere, nor that every individual outside the Church is personally guilty of rejecting the truth. Personal culpability depends upon circumstances known perfectly to God.

The point is more fundamental: the truth of divine revelation is objective. It cannot be determined by the sincerity of the believer, the popularity of his religion, or the desire for social harmony.

Pius XI insisted that the religion founded by Jesus Christ is not one option among equivalent religious systems.

The Catholic Church’s mission is to proclaim the truth entrusted to her, not to construct a common religion by setting aside the doctrines that distinguish Christ from His religious rivals.

5. THE MODERNIST METHOD: BEGIN WITH COMMON GROUND AND SILENCE THE DIFFERENCES

The modernist modus operandi is never necessarily to deny God openly. It is more subtle.

• It begins with a proposition that sounds reasonable: we all believe in God.
• It then moves to another proposition: because we all believe in God, our religious differences should not divide us.
• Finally, the differences that ought to be examined in the light of divine revelation are treated as secondary, divisive, or unnecessary.

But the conclusion does not follow from the premise.

Two men may both claim to speak for a king. Their common recognition that the king exists does not establish that both accurately represent his commands.

Likewise, the common profession of one Creator does not establish that every religion accurately represents Him.

The Catholic Faith is not merely the belief that God exists. It is the supernatural virtue of faith by which we believe the truths God has revealed because of His authority, who can neither deceive nor be deceived.

The Trinity is not an optional theory. The Incarnation is not a negotiable interpretation. The Redemption is not one religious account among several equally acceptable accounts.

When the distinctions are erased in the name of unity, unity is purchased at the expense of truth.

6. BUT IS THIS REALLY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH SPEAKING?

Here we reach the central issue.

Onaiyekan’s reported appeal to “my Church” raises a question that cannot be avoided by discussing only the meaning of the word God.

The Catholic Church is not defined merely by the buildings she owns, the vestments her ministers wear, the titles they bear, or the institutional continuity they claim.

She is the Church founded by Jesus Christ, possessing the Faith delivered by Him to the Apostles and preserved through the ages.

She is not free to change divine revelation into its opposite. She cannot make falsehood true by an official declaration, nor can she cease to profess the truth entrusted to her while remaining Catholic merely through the retention of Catholic names.

Our Lord declared:

“Heaven and earth shall pass, but my words shall not pass.” — Matthew 24:35, Douay-Rheims

The Church is not the author of revelation. She is its guardian and teacher.

The traditional Catholic position is that the Church is indefectible: she cannot lose the essential constitution, faith, and divine mission given to her by Christ. This does not mean that every person holding ecclesiastical office is incapable of error or that every statement made by a cleric is Catholic doctrine.

It means that the Catholic religion itself cannot be transformed into a different religion by the authorities who are supposed to preserve it.

Here we must insist on the distinction between the Catholic Church and the modernist institution. 

From the consistent traditional Catholic perspective, the institution now claiming the Catholic name while promoting doctrines and practices incompatible with the pre-Vatican II Faith is not simply the Catholic Church undergoing an ordinary administrative reform.

It is a modernist impostor occupying Catholic buildings, retaining a number of Catholic terminology, and claiming Catholic authority while departing from the religion those names and offices were established to serve.

This theological conclusion flows from the principles of the Church’s indefectibility and the immutability of revealed truth. 

The underlying and unavoidable unavailable question is: 

Can an institution contradict the Catholic Faith and then make its contradictions Catholic simply by declaring that “our Church” teaches them?

The traditional answer is an absolute NO

Buildings do not constitute the Church. Titles do not constitute the Faith. Institutional claims do not overrule divine revelation.

If an institution teaches a religious doctrine incompatible with the Catholic Faith, its claim to speak with Catholic authority must itself be examined.

7. THE APPEAL TO THE “MAINSTREAM” DOES NOT SETTLE THE QUESTION

The reported statement appeals to the mainstream teaching of Christianity and Islam.

But what does mainstream establish?

It may describe what many contemporary religious leaders believe. It cannot establish that their belief is true.

Truth is not decided by majority vote.

If a thousand people affirm a proposition and one person correctly identifies its contradiction with divine revelation, the number of those who disagree does not make the contradiction disappear.

The Catholic Faith is not founded upon a contemporary consensus among religious leaders. It is founded upon the revelation of God.

Pope Pius XI’s Mortalium Animos warns against the tendency to treat religious differences as though they could be overcome by placing competing religions on a common level.

Therefore, even if the reported position is widespread among contemporary purported religious authorities, its popularity does not answer the theological objection.

The question remains: Does it preserve the unique truth of Jesus Christ and the religion He founded?

8. CHARITY DOES NOT REQUIRE RELIGIOUS INDIFFERENTISM

A Catholic must love his neighbour, including his Muslim and Jewish neighbours. He must oppose unjust discrimination, persecution, and violence. He may cooperate with people of other religions in legitimate works for the common good.

None of these duties requires him to claim that all religions are equally true.

Our Lord commanded love of neighbour. He also commanded the Apostles to teach all nations.

The missionary mandate makes no sense if the differences between Christianity and other religions are ultimately irrelevant.

If the fullness of divine revelation has been given in Jesus Christ, then Catholics must bear witness to Him with charity and conviction.

We must not insult Muslims or Jews. We must not presume to judge the eternal destiny of individual souls. But neither must we conceal the truth about Christ to avoid offending religious sensibilities.

Charity seeks the true good of the neighbour. It does not require us to affirm what we believe to be false.

9. THE REAL ISSUE IS NOT ONAIYEKAN ALONE

This tract is not ultimately about one nominal  Cardinal’s choice of words. In fact those words are not his. He simply paraphrased a key doctrine of the modernist Robber council. 

In its Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, promulgated on 28 October 1965, Nostra Aetate, § 3, the Robber council states:

“The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth…”

Thus, the issue at hand is the identity of the religion being preached in the name of Catholicism.

When purported religious authorities speak of a common religious foundation while diminishing the importance of the Incarnation, the Trinity, the Redemption, and the unique mission of the Catholic Church, Catholics with informed catholic common sense recognize that the Catholic Faith is not being faithfully transmitted but substantially altered.

When the institution claiming Catholic name and authority presents doctrines that contradict the traditional Faith, Catholics cannot resolve the difficulty by repeating the institution’s own claim to be Catholic.

That would be circular reasoning.

The Catholic Church is Catholic because she is the Church founded by Christ and preserves the Faith He entrusted to her, not because a contemporary institution declares itself Catholic.

The test is not whether a supposed religious leader uses the word Church. The test is whether the doctrine he teaches agrees with the Faith of the Church.

EPILOGUE: WHOSE CHURCH, WHOSE FAITH?

Nominal Cardinal Onaiyekan’s reported statement invites us to ask whether Christians, Jews, Muslims, and others who invoke God believe in the same God.

The traditional Catholic answer requires distinctions. 

There is only one true Creator. Different people may intend to refer to Him while holding contradictory and erroneous beliefs about His nature and revelation. Their common reference does not establish the truth of their religions, nor does it make the denial of Christ compatible with Catholic doctrine.

But the deeper question is this:

When Onaiyekan says “my Church,” which Church does he mean?

If he means the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ, then her doctrine must be examined against the Faith she received from Him and preserved through the ages.

If, he means the modernist institution which has adopted religious principles incompatible with that Faith, then its occupation of Catholic buildings and retention of Catholic titles cannot, by themselves, establish that it is the indefectible Catholic Church.

The Catholic Faith is not made true by institutional declarations. The truth of divine revelation is the standard by which ecclesiastical claims must be judged.

The question is therefore larger than whether Christians and Muslims invoke the same Creator. It is whether the religion preached under the Catholic name remains the religion of Jesus Christ.

• A building bearing the Catholic name does not make every doctrine preached inside it Catholic. 
• A supposed clerical title does not make every opinion, backed by whatever authority, a teaching of the Catholic Church. 
• And an institution’s claim to Catholic identity cannot make a contradiction of the Catholic Faith into Catholic truth.

The Church belongs to Christ. Her Faith comes from Christ. Her mission is to teach the truth revealed by Christ.

No institution can legitimately demand that the faithful exchange that truth for a modern religious consensus.

The issue is not whether the Catholic Church has changed her address. It is that those claiming to represent her, including the nominal cardinal Onaiyekan, have changed the religion and the “church” he calls “my church” is not the One, Holy, Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church whose infallible Guide is the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity.

Think on it! 

Dare to think on it!