Posted on 03/12/2011 11:20:32 AM PST by swissguard007
Catholic or Cafeteria Catholic? I’ve seen your posts before. You think nearly every Pope is an apostate.
Catholics don’t get to select which Pope’s they accept or reject. Apostolic Succession is what it is. Individuals choosing Pope’s is also a form of Cafeteria Catholicism.
Enjoy the evening.
As long as you are reverting to ridiculous defense mode, why don't you just say that I think that the moon is made out of cheese?
There's been 265 popes. Compared to the first 260, all 5 Vatican II popes are not even Catholic. Pope St. Pius X would have excommunicated all five before they even became bishops.
re: Catholics don’t get to select which Pope’s they accept or reject. Apostolic Succession is what it is. Individuals choosing Pope’s is also a form of Cafeteria Catholicism.
That's irrelevant. We don't follow any priest, bishop, or pope who teaches error.
In fact, the bad shepherds are a chastisement for the sins of the sheep. Saint John Eudes, basing his words on Sacred Scripture, says that when God wants to punish his people, he sends them bad priests. See The Priest, His Dignity and Obligations, by Saint John Eudes, Chapter 2, "Qualities of a Holy Priest". (New York: P.J. Kenedy and Sons, 1947).
A No, No to Assisi - Another Loyal Son Protests
Catholic Apologetics International ^ | June 14, 2002 | Robert Sungenis, M.A. (Ph.D cd)
Freerepublic - Posted on Monday, July 08, 2002 5:19:47 PM by narses
As many of you are aware already, one of the most controversial events in the pontificate of John Paul II occurred January 24, 2002. It was the time the Pope called representatives of the religions of the world to Assisi, Italy, to pray with Catholics for world peace. Because of its seeming breech between the sacred and the profane, many cardinals, bishops, priest and religious advised the pope against this event, but he nevertheless went ahead with it and promoted it heavily. Prior to this, a similar meeting occurred at Assisi in 1986, in which 160 representatives of the world’s religions were gathered at the behest of the Vatican. Lesser known but similar events occurred at Kyoto in 1987; Rome in 1988; Warsaw in 1989; Bari in 1990; Malta in 1991.
These events are controversial because they are the first time in the history of the Catholic Church that world religions have been solicited to pray, alongside of Catholics, for a mutual concern. Since John Paul’s action at Assisi appears as a novelty in Catholic practice, then the fair question has to be asked whether it was proper, and in the worst case, whether it was, in fact, against the tradition of the Church and the plan of God.
Before I proceed with the analysis of Assisi, I want to state a few things about my love and respect for the papacy. Contrary to many who disagree with the pope’s teachings and actions, I am of the opinion that he deserves our continued allegiance and respect, and whenever possible, the benefit of the doubt. I maintain this posture, if not for John Paul himself, then for the institution of the papacy - our God-given gift that surpasses all the gifts, save Christ, that He has given to the Church.
Because it hits right to the heart of the papacy, and more specifically to the whole 23-year pontificate of John Paul, many will fight to the death to deny that any such egregious practices are being fostered by the pope. But the question is: can we do so? Are we supposed to sit back and be such docile subjects of the hierarchy to the point that we dare not question anything that they do? I don’t think so. Except for dogmatic teachings, in the Catholic curia we, unfortunately, are often dealing with weak, fallible and agenda-driven men. We cannot sit idly by. If we do, then we will have to answer to God for our negligence. God uses the people to move the hierarchy into action, for it is simply too easy for the latter to think that because they have authority they can do whatever they very well please. In fact, the Church’s own Canon Law demands us to bring these concerns to the hierarchy in hopes that they will mend their ways.
According to Canon Law: “The Christian faithful are free to make known their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires to the pastors of the Church. In accord with the knowledge, competence and preeminence which they possess, they have the right and even at times a duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church, and they have a right to make their opinion known to the other Christian faithful, with due regard for the integrity of faith and morals and reverence toward their pastors, and with consideration for the common good and the dignity of persons” (Can 212-2, 3).
Taking my directive from the above Canon Law, I do not hesitate to say that there is something radically wrong about Assisi. It is such a drastic departure from the way the Catholic Church has thought and believed that I fear in this case the Pope has simply bent too far. My worry is not only with Assisi, but with the mentality it produces in the lives of Catholics, today and far into the future.
Unlike the historic Church, the modern Church seems to be in a continual search for the least common denominator among men. It seems that people are accepted no matter how pagan their beliefs; and hardly anyone is condemned no matter how deviant their lifestyle. The standards have been lowered to appease the rivals in hopes that they will accept the Church, but the reality is that they have enticed all of us further away from the truth. I believe Assisi 2002, as well as Assisi 1986 and the other interreligious prayer meetings, have so egregiously broken the historic barrier between the sacred and the profane, that unless the Church reverses this course, it will head us all into apostasy.
In knowing Church history as I do, I am not overly shocked. Vatican I, as it was formulating the dogma of papal infallibility, found forty-one instances in Catholic history of Popes making misstatements in theology and condoning malicious practices. None of them were made on an ex cathedra basis, however, and thus the doctrine of infallibility is unharmed. Consequently, I’m not concerned that the institution of the papacy will fall if the pope makes an error in personal judgment or happens to fall into grievous sin. Christ promised to protect the Church from destruction, until if and when He decides the Church’s time is over. If all the popes’ writings and practices throughout history were scrutinized, errors or ambiguities would be found in many of their sayings and actions. You can consult my paper: “Sex, Lies and Video Tape” regarding the current homosexual/pedophile scandal for the details of some of our more notorious popes and prelates in church history. In short, I think John Paul has made a mistake - a terrible mistake - but the papacy will survive.
To his credit, John Paul II’s writings concerning the Church’s requirement to bring the message of Christ to the world is outlined very well in his 1990 encyclical, Redemptoris Missio. The message seems clear and concise in that encyclical.
So then, what is the problem? The problem is that the Assisi event has cast a long shadow on Redemptoris Missio. In effect, the message of that encyclical has been diluted or altered at Assisi, and thus we have two conflicting messages that strain attempts at reconciliation to the absolute breaking point. Somehow, the necessity to preach Christ and repentance to the world’s religions as a top priority of the Church has been relaxed to the point in which the pagan’s prayer and worship is now sufficient for him, on his own and without conversion to Christianity, to beseech and expect divine assistance, both spiritual and physical.
In fact, it makes one wonder what precisely John Paul meant in Redemptoris Missio, for in light of the recent events at Assisi, that encyclical can now be read in one of two ways - in the traditional way the Church has always taught, or in a much more novel way. As such, we are forced to question whether the recently coined phrases “new evangelization” or “civilization of love” have meanings far deeper than merely promoting a new vitality in gospel preaching.
For example, one of the more haunting questions stemming from the whole body of evidence surrounding the Assisi events concerns whether the present curia believes, or is tending to believe, that the world’s religions are already on the path to salvation without the necessity of embracing Christ and the Catholic Church directly, or even worse, have already attained that salvation with us such that our evangelization no longer seeks to save them as much as it seeks to inform them of the fact that they have already been saved.
If the pope believes a world religion can pray for physical and spiritual blessings as a mutual concern with Catholics, then it appears he must also believe that the pagan has an established, not just incidental, relationship with God, to the point where God would hear the prayers of a pagan the same as he would hear the prayers of any faithful Catholic. Moreover, it suggests that God is not the least bit disturbed by the pagan’s worship of false gods and sinful lifestyle, nor the least bit disturbed that the Catholic is not discouraging the pagan from his false worship and lifestyle.
Note that this does not include the scenario in which a pagan comes to his senses and offers up a prayer of repentance. Certainly no one would disagree that God gives an attentive ear to those kinds of prayers. Scripture is filled with such examples. We are addressing, rather, the Church’s promotion of the idea that the pagan penitent is already understood as being in intimate communion with God such that he can ask for spiritual and physical well-being in his life, and would expect to be answered in the affirmative. In the tradition of the Church, that is a privilege reserved only to those who are already in covenant with God, a covenant based on the faith and morals taught and practiced in the Catholic Church.
We are also talking about whether the pagan who prays to his respective deity (which Assisi promoted, since it allowed the religions to address their respective deities by name and with the customary recitations and implements of worship) is in fact praying to the true God. If for example, one of the pagans offers prays and incense to The Great Thumb (which actually occurred at Assisi), then in the estimation of the Church, is he praying to a false god or is he praying to the true God? If it is to a false god, then the Church is obviously promoting prayers to a pagan deity. If to the true God, then the Church has blurred the line between the false god and the true God to such a point that there is no practical difference between the two, at least with regard to prayer. But unfortunately, prayer is such a sacred and integral part of communion with God that any encroachment upon it necessarily means an encroachment upon every other aspect of Christianity.
In light of these concerns, it is necessary to bring to light some of the more suspicious statements John Paul has made over the years concerning pagan religions, statements that raise concern about his apparent dissolving of the traditional distinctions between Christians and non-Christians; as well as raising concern over the spiritual power John Paul seems to attribute to these pagan religions.
For example, during prayer with an African Animist on August 8, 1985, John Paul writes: “The prayer meeting in the sanctuary at Lake Togo was particularly striking. There I prayed for the first time with animists.” In 1986, in New Delhi, India, John Paul stated: “Collaboration between all religions is necessary for the good of mankind. Today, as Hindus, Buddhists, Jansenists, and Christians, we unite to proclaim the truth about man” (La Croix, Feb 4, 1986). In his 1991 encyclical Centissimus Annus (60, 3), John Paul states: “I am convinced that the various religions, now and in the future, will have a preeminent role in preserving peace and in building a society worthy of man.” In 62, 3 he writes: “...the Church will be faithful in making man’s way her own.” On April 19, 1998, during the homily of a con-celebrated Mass, in front of Indian women offering incense and flowers, John Paul said: “We would like to listen to what the spirit is saying to the Churches, so that they can proclaim Christ in the context of Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism and all those ways of thinking and living which were already rooted in Asia before the preaching of the Gospel arrived there” (L’ Osservatore Romano, April 22, 1998). At the same meeting, John Paul stated: “Gandhi taught us that if all men and women, whatever the differences among them, embrace the truth, in the respect and dignity unique to every human being, a New World Order, a civilization of love can be attained.” On January 21, 1995, in a meeting with Buddhists, John Paul stated: “This meeting signified togetherness. We are together; it is necessary to be together; not to be together is dangerous” (Man of the Millennium, p. 149). On November 17, 1999, in his general audience, John Paul stated: “It was important to reaffirm the lively desire of the Church for a fruitful dialogue among the believers of all religions” (The Catholic World Report, “Dialogue and evangelization,” Jan. 2000, p. 9) (emphasis mine). “I love all religions...If people become better Hindus, better Moslems, better Buddhists by our acts of love, then there is something else growing there. They come closer and closer to God...” (Interview with Mother Teresa, 1989).
These are just some of the hundreds of statements regarding these issues that John Paul has made in his 23 year pontificate. If some other religious figure had made these kinds of statements, I dare say that the majority of Catholics would immediately sense something was wrong. But because these statements are said by the pope, a sizeable majority of people voluntarily minimize their discretionary powers, since they find it difficult to believe that the vicar of Christ could be fostering something akin to idol worship.
I am not the only one who has voiced concern over this matter. In fact, I am rather late in making my comments, since they are coming six months after Assisi 2002. Thousands of faithful Catholics across the world have made their objections known. Even those who have tried to defend the issue struggle to do so, because deep in their hearts they sense that something is seriously wrong in praying with pagans, whether together or separately.
Added to their angst is the current sex scandal occurring in the Church, a scandal that, as the reports keep mounting, may turn out to be one of the worst in Catholic history. Sins as grave as homosexuality and pedophilia in the priesthood and bishopric do not arise out of a vacuum. They are the product of a sordid, and dare I say, satanic, influence, which has infiltrated the Church of the twentieth century, and is starting fresh in the twenty-first century. As I said above, this mentality has lowered the standards of faith and morals to such a point that things which in the historic Church would have been immediately rejected as sin and heresy, are not only tolerated in today’s Church but promoted as the right thing to do. And if one happens to break the lowered standards, he is merely given a slap on the wrist and sent back to resume his normal activities.
Before I get into the rest of my analysis of Assisi, I want to cite a piece written by another very faithful and loyal Catholic son. He is the well-respected Catholic theologian and professor at the Pontifical University in Ponce Puerto Rico, Fr. Brian Harrison, who wrote the following to the popular magazine “Inside the Vatican” in the May 2002 issue. He writes:
A “Loyal Son” Protests
Can a loyal Catholic ever criticize the Pope? Can it ever be his duty to voice such criticism publicly? These agonizing questions have been presenting themselves increasingly in recent years to a good number of Catholics who, like myself, do not consider themselves in any way dissenters. We accept all the authentic teachings of the Magisterium, including those since Vatican Council II, but feel deeply troubled by the policy and practice of the present pontiff in regard to non-Christian religions.
As a priest who teaches theology at a pontifical university, I am dismayed at the January 24 inter-religious peace gathering in Assisi. It is well-known that before the first such gathering in 1986 (which played no small part in provoking the rupture between Archbishop Lefebvre and the Holy See in 1988), a number of cardinals privately warned John Paul II of the imprudence of such an innovation - utterly unheard of in 2,000 years of Church history. Their concern was shared by thousands of faithful priests, religious and Catholic laity. Perhaps if we had publicly voiced that concern, instead of remaining silent out of fear and human respect, His Holiness might have felt the need for greater restraint in the next millennium.
Despite certain precautionary nuances against syncretism (the Assisi meetings were officially described as not being a case of “coming to pray together,” but as “coming together to pray”), the practical effect in the minds of millions of observers worldwide can only have been to create or reinforce the impression that the Roman Catholic Church now endorses what Pope Pius XI described as “the view that all religions are more or less good and praiseworthy.” But while vast numbers of Catholics now see nothing much wrong with that view, Pius XI declared that those who support and promote it are “lapsing gradually into naturalism and atheism” and therefore are “totally falling away from the religion revealed by God” (cf. Mortalium Animos, 1928).
What other impression than a verdict of “more-or-less-good-and-praiseworthy” is left when the Roman pontiff invites Jewish, Islamic, pantheistic and polytheistic religious leaders to come and practice their respective forms of worship inside Catholic churches and religious houses, offering to each group space and facilities for that purpose? How does such an invitation escape the charge of formal cooperation in the objectively sinful practice of pagan worship? How will it in any way help to persuade those invited non-Christians, and their millions of followers, that Jesus Christ is the only Saviour?
Is Assisi really justified by Vatican II’s cautious recognition in Nostra Aetate that non-Christian religions “often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men” or by its call for “prudent...discussion and collaboration with members of other religions”? Are such gatherings (not to mention such unheard-of gestures as the Pope’s public kissing of the Koran on May 14, 1999) apt to give any practical reflection to the Catholic truth that the “belief” of non-Christians is not the theological virtue of faith - recently confirmed as definitive by John Paul II in Dominus Jesus?
I offer these comments, not in a spirit of defiance, but as a loyal son of the Holy Father who prays for him daily, who assents to all his formal teachings as Vicar of Christ, but who also grieves for the scandal and confusion caused by radically innovative practices which do not seem to reflect those teachings.
Fr. Brian W Harrison, O.S., S.T.D. Ponce, Puerto Rico
Notice that Fr. Harrison said that the Pope was advised by many cardinals, bishops and priests not to organize the Assisi meeting. This is evidence of a strong consensus against his actions. Fr. Harrison also cited the writings of Pius X and XI, which could not be clearer regarding the dangers of consorting with other religions. Fr. Harrison’s words are not those coming from a fanatical right-wing backbiter, but, as he calls himself, a “loyal son” who obeys and supports all that the Magisterium teaches, including Vatican II. Surely no one can dismiss Fr. Harrison’s comments as coming from bias and animosity toward the modern Church, but one who has deep concern that the present pontificate has, in some cases, either taken the pastoral directives of the Magisterium much too far, or in other cases, has simply set aside those directives.
And this brings us to the crux of the issue.
The single more important question in this whole matter is: Has the present pontificate ignored, altered, or erroneously added to, the teachings of past pontificates and magisteriums by its organizing, promotion and participation in the Assisi prayer gatherings? Unfortunately, the answer I cannot avoid, as painful as it is to state, is an unqualified affirmative. As Fr. Harrison pointed out, Assisi is a direct violation of the authoritative writings of both Pius X and Pius XI condemning interreligious prayer gatherings, not to mention against the entire tradition of the Church. When we see pontificate going against pontificate, and magisterium against magisterium, then we know something is seriously wrong in our Church, and it goes much deeper than just an event at Assisi.
The break with previous popes and magisterial teaching is made rather obvious, since John Paul II cites no papal teaching or authoritative precedent for his actions. And although this may come as a surprise to many, John Paul does not even cite directives from Vatican II to organize prayer gatherings with pagans, for as we will see later, Vatican II gave no directives for the Church to pray with pagan religions, whether together or separately.
Thus, not only is Assisi a setting aside of past pontifical and magisterial teachings, we must face the fact that, since it does indeed set them aside, whether deliberately or inadvertently, we have sinned against God and are required to repent. In fact, I cannot help but deduce that the present spiritual turmoil and moral decay we see running rampant in the Church today is a direct result of God’s judgment upon the Church for this and its many other sins; and there is more judgment to come unless we turn back to the right path (cf., 1 Peter 4:17-18; Revelations 2:2-5; 2:14-16; 2:20-24; 3:2-3; 3:15-19; 2 Corinthians 11:3-4).
Now that I have briefly outlined my concerns with Assisi, I will now respond to various Catholics who have attempted to defend the Assisi meetings as being in-line with, or representative of, Catholic beliefs and tradition.
To facilitate the dialogue I will employ the writings of three Catholics as my interlocutors: Apologist Mr. Mark Shea; Father Alfredo M. Morselli; and Father Xavier Garban of the Fraternity of St. Peter. These men and their arguments were randomly chosen from the Internet. I will interact with each of their points. Each dialogue is different, since each defender comes at the problem from a different angle. I will start with apologist Mark Shea first. My comments will be in blue, while my interlocutors will be in red.
Mr. Shea: I’m having trouble figuring out what, exactly, the problem is with the whole Assisi thing. Pope calls together a bunch of religions to agree on the need for peace. Blessed are the peacemakers, etc. I’m tracking with that. Pope says no we’re not praying together, everybody go to your own corner and pray according to the dictates of your conscience. But let’s work together as we can to keep the world from going up in flames. Lumen Gentium and Unitatis Redintegratio teach this. Okay. I’m still tracking.
R. Sungenis: In a nutshell, here is one of the most basic problems. It concerns the nature of prayer. First, the Pope is assuming, without precedent from Tradition, or even Vatican II, that God expects, listens to, and answers the prayers of pagan religions for material goods, prior to a prayer of repentance.
Second, that Catholics can at least be in the same vicinity when these pagan prayers are offered, and, in fact, that Catholic facilities can be used to foster such prayer.
Third, that these pagan religions can:
(a) persist in their pagan prayers without being persuaded to abandon them, now or in the future,
(b) pray to their pagan deities without being persuaded to convert out of their pagan religion;
(c) pray to their pagan deity and be told by the Catholic Church that they are praying to the same deity to whom Catholics are praying.
These are novel teachings and practices in Catholicism. There is absolutely no precedent for them either in the Tradition of the Church at large, or in Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium or Unitatis Redintegratio, or Nostra Aetate that directs Catholics to solicit the help of pagan religions to persuade God to provide for the physical and spiritual needs of the world.
If someone tries to make a case that Vatican II gave the precedent for the meetings at Assisi, the documents of Vatican II reveal otherwise:
“Pray,” “Prayer,” “Praying,” or any other derivative of the word “pray,” are mentioned over 200 times in Vatican II’s documents. The documents that mention prayer are: Ad Gentes; Apostolicam Actuositatem; Christus Dominus; Dei Verbum; Gaudium et Spes; Inter Mirifica; Lumen Gentium; Nostra Aetate; Optatam Totius; Orientalium Ecclessorum; Perfectae Caritatis; Presbyterorum Ordinis; Unitatis Redintegratio. In NONE of these documents do the fathers of Vatican II ever advise, advocate, encourage, suggest, imply, propose, recommend, predict or direct the faithful to seek the help of pagan religions to either persuade God to help with the world’s problems, or as a gesture or anticipation of future unity. It simply is not there.
There is only one place in all of Vatican II’s documents in which Catholics are encouraged to pray with non-Catholics. That directive appears in Unitatis Redintegratio. That directive, however, is given only with regard to praying with “separated brethren,” and with the significant caveat that such prayer is allowed for the sole purpose of seeking to convince them to reunify with the Catholic Church. I will cover that passage later in this essay.
According to a speech to the Roman Curia on December 22, 1986, John Paul cited two short documents in Vatican II as justification for the Assisi prayer gathering of 1986. Those documents were Lumen Gentium 2, 9 and Gaudium et Spes, 42. Lumen Gentium 2, 9 speaks about the Church of the Old Testament becoming the Church of the New Testament, and that the Church is “destined to extend to all regions of the earth,” while Gaudium et Spes, 42 speaks about the Church being “universal in that it is not committed to any one culture or to any political, economic or social system,” and the need for “all men put aside conflict between nations and races.” These themes were certainly expressed at Assisi since the meeting was designed to promote world peace, but the crucial ingredient that is missing from both Lumen Gentium and Gaudium et Spes to justify using them as a basis for Assisi is that neither document speaks about accomplishing the goal by inviting pagan religions to pray to their false gods. Lumen Gentium and Gaudium et Spes are saying nothing different than what the Apostle Paul said in Romans 12:18: “If possible, so far as it depends on you, be a peace with all men.” The Church has always believed that is her task. But St. Paul nowhere speaks about organizing prayer meetings with pagans in order to accomplish that goal, and neither do the Fathers or the Church at large. As noted, not once in all of Vatican II’s teaching is praying with pagans even suggested as a means of unity among men.
In his above remark, Mr. Shea says: “The Pope says no we’re not praying together, everybody go to your own corner and pray according to the dictates of your conscience.” If I’m reading him correctly, Mr. Shea is agreeing that it would be wrong to have Catholics “praying together” with pagan religions. So I assume that if the Pope had eliminated the private rooms and withdrawn the curtains of Assisi and had then permitted Catholics to pray in the same location with pagan religions such that the Catholic and the pagans could see each other praying, that would be wrong. Not only would it be wrong, but I assume it would be an abomination.
Obviously, we are traversing on a very thin line here. The mere removal of a curtain can mean the difference between apostasy and spirituality.
But if the criterion Mr. Shea has fostered is valid, then what do we make of the words of John Paul II in Redemptor Hominis 6 (some versions have 16):
“What we have just said must also be applied – although in another way and with the due differences – to activity for coming closer together with the representatives of the non-Christian religions, an activity expressed through dialogue, contacts, prayer in common, investigation of the treasures of human spirituality, in which, as we know well, the members of these religions also are not lacking.”
Notice the Pope has singled out “non-Christian religions” (which would include Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, Shintoism, Confucianism, et al), and says that we should have “prayer in common” with them.
Now “prayer in common,” if it means anything, means that we are praying together in the same location; praying to the same God for the same reasons, for that is what Catholics, for example, do with one another at the Mass when they make their requests known to God – pray in common. In the previous paragraph of Redemptor Hominis 6, John Paul is speaking about the ongoing ecumenical efforts of the Church to unify all Christians (Catholics and “separated brethren”). As Vatican II directed, we are to “pray in common” with them for reunification, which John Paul affirms.
Yet it seems amply clear that John Paul goes way beyond Vatican II, saying that we should also pray in common with the non-Christian religions, and it is assumed that the “due differences” in how we approach “separated brethren” and “non-Christians” does not refer to “prayer in common.”
So I would assume that unless Mr. Shea has a sufficient reason for interpreting “prayer in common” differently than what we normally understand it to be, he would have to agree that Redemptor Hominis seeks to go further than any previous Catholic teaching in allowing Catholics to pray with pagan religions. It seems that this 1979 encyclical, Redemptor Hominis, is the precedent for Assisi. Because of its date (1979) it is apparent that John Paul was setting the stage very early in his pontificate.
It would also mean that Mr. Shea’s qualification that Assisi was permissible because “the Pope says no we’re not praying together, everybody go to your own corner and pray according to the dictates of your conscience” really holds no weight, since Redemptor Hominis 6 seems to have already nullified that distinction.
In essence, we have three different views on this matter:
(1) According to Vatican II, it is permissible to pray with “separated brethren,” and only in hopes of reunifying them to the Catholic Church. Vatican II gives no directives or permission to pray with pagan religions, least of all for any worldly concern.
(2) According to Mr. Shea, the meeting at Assisi shows that it is permissible to pray for the same request with pagans (e.g., world peace) as long as we don’t pray together (e.g., in the same room).
(3) According to John Paul II’s Redemptor Hominis, it is permissible to “pray in common” with non-Christian religions because they have “human spirituality.”
Now, it is possible that the phrase “prayer in common” of Redemptor Hominis 6 might mean something less than praying alongside of a pagan. The Latin of “prayer in common” is “simul orans,” which, because of the word “simul,” is somewhat ambiguous. It can mean “together; in common” or it can mean “at the same time.” Based on this ambiguity some have tried to argue that Assisi allowed “prayer at the same time” (that is, prayer in separate rooms) but not “prayer in common” (that is, prayer in the same room).
Such hairsplitting arguments merely show the desperation of the Assisi defenders.
First, the argument is academic, since neither praying together with pagans nor praying at the same time in separate rooms for the same concern, have a precedent in Catholic history.
Second, assuming that there was a distinction between the two, the Vatican’s own English translation says “prayer in common.” This is located at the following website address: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-i i_enc_04031979_redemptor-hominis_en.html
Third, even if “simul orans” is translated more loosely, this in itself does not make Assisi legitimate. It only shows that Redemptor Hominis and Assisi are closer together than further apart. The question would remain whether Redemptor Hominis overstepped its bounds by even suggesting that prayer with pagan religions, in any forum, is permissible, since there is no precedent from Church teaching for such an innovation.
Fourth, John Paul’s personal decisions in this matter seem to go beyond the “separated rooms” of Assisi. As noted above, John Paul mentioned that in 1985 it was “There I prayed for the first time with animists.” So apparently, the distinction between “praying in common” and “praying at the same time” is not a crucial one in his mind. Praying “with an animist” cannot mean anything other than “praying in common” with an animist. If not, then we stretch the meaning of words into the area of the absurd.
Fifth, in another of John Paul’s statements on pagan religions, he declared that the non-Christian religions are actually praying to GOD, the same God to whom we Catholics pray. Commenting on the 160 world religions assembled for prayer at the 1986 Assisi meeting, John Paul said: “In 1986, at Assisi, during the World Day of Prayer for Peace, Christians of the various Churches and Ecclesial Communities prayed with one voice to the Lord of history for peace in the world. That same day, in a different but parallel way, Jews and representatives of non-Christian religions also prayed for peace in a harmonious expression of feelings which struck a resonant chord deep in the human spirit” (Ut Unum Sint 76, May 25, 1995). The only qualification made between the Christians and non-Christians is “in a different but parallel way.” Both groups pray for peace and to the same God, but they do it “in a different but parallel way.” The only thing “different” that the non-Christians do is pray to their pagan deities with their own implements of worship. Everything else is the same. In John Paul’s view, they are praying to the “Lord of history” via their pagan deities. If this is not the case, then we have one alternative left: the pagans are praying to their own deities for peace, without reference to the “Lord of history,” and thus the pope is promoting idol worship and idol prayer.
This causes two problems:
(a) the distinction between false gods and the true God, a distinction which permeates Scripture and Church teaching, has been obliterated to such a point that it no longer makes a difference whether one prays to a pagan deity or to the true God, since both prayers are considered as offered to the true God. Note that we are not talking about the ignorance of the pagans in this regard. They may pray to pagan gods merely because they know nothing else. Rather, we are talking about the unmitigated fact that the Church is fostering the idea that it is now acceptable for pagans to pray to the true God by praying through their false gods. Again, that is a novel idea in the annals of Catholic thought, with absolutely no precedent from tradition.
(b) The second problem is one concerning a contradiction in protocol. If non-Catholic Christians (Protestants) are allowed to pray together in the same room with Catholics because, as Vatican II taught, we “pray to the same God,” then why are non-Christians separated from us with curtains and concrete walls if they are praying to the same God? There seems to be an inconsistency here.
Sixth, John Paul uses the phrase “prayer in common” indiscriminately between Catholics, Protestants and non-Christians, and never with a reference to the distinction engendered by the translation “praying at the same time.” For example, in a January 1984 homily, written in Italian, John Paul refers to the Vatican II document Unitatis Redintegratio saying, “The Second Vatican Council advised prayer in common with other Christians: ‘Such prayers in common are certainly a very effective means of petitioning for the grace of unity” [UR8]. Obviously, the use of “prayer in common” here does not merely mean “praying at the same time,” since the latter meaning is not what Vatican II taught regarding ecumenical prayer.
In a January 29, 1992 General Audience address, John Paul stated: “Prayer - prayer in common is the basic feature of that ‘communion’ at the time when the Church began, and so it will always be. This is evidenced in every century - and today as well - by prayer in common, particularly liturgical prayer, in our churches, religious communities and, may God increasingly grant us this grace, in Christian families. The author of the Acts of the Apostles accentuates their being devoted to prayer: i.e., a constant and, one would say, regular prayer, well ordered and attended by the community. This is an-other feature of the ecclesial community, the heir to that beginning which remains an example for all generations to come.”
Once again, “prayer in common” seems to be a non-discriminatory act, not an act promoting merely “simultaneous prayer.”
The understanding of “prayer in common” also seems to be clear in John Paul’s General Audience address of January 4, 1995: “It is known that in the Christian tradition there are various forms of prayer, particularly prayer “in common” and “private” prayer. Both are necessary and are generally prescribed. Prayer in common should never cause one to become unaccustomed to private prayer, nor should the latter become so prevalent that community prayer is eliminated or disparaged” [5].
“Prayer in common” is again used in reference to Christian prayer in John Paul’s Homily of January 25, 1997: “The parish institution is meant to provide the Church’s great services: prayer in common and the reading of God’s Word, celebrations, especially that of the Eucharist, catechesis for children and the adult catechumenate, the ongoing formation of the faithful, communication designed to make the Christian message known, services of charity and solidarity and the local work of movements.”
Seventh, how do we square the sentiments of John Paul with those of Pius XI in the encyclical Mortalium Animos (Jan. 6, 1928), as the latter forthrightly condemned the error of those who “... presuppose the erroneous view that all religions are more or less praiseworthy, in as much as all give expression, under various forms, to that innate sense which leads men to God.” It seems that Pius XI is saying that it is erroneous to foster the idea that worldly religions give expressions of allegiance to God in different forms. If it means anything, it means that what appears to be their seeking after God is by no means a true seeking. Logically, if they were truly seeking, God would answer them, for He is true to His word (Mt 7:7-12).
(In light of this I think it is worth mentioning that Redemptor Hominis mentions the word “church” 150 times, but does not mention the word “Catholic” once, and thus we wonder what “church” John Paul has in mind in that encyclical).
Eighth, as much as we would like to allow the distinction, the attempt at hair-splitting the definition of a single word becomes rather trite. Moreover, if the difference between right and wrong can be determined by the presence of a mere curtain between two opposing groups in the same vicinity, what have we brought upon ourselves? The main question that has yet to be answered is: Why are the pagan religions allowed to come to Assisi in the first place, since no doctrine in Catholic tradition has ever taught, not to mention ever permitted, “praying at the same time” with pagans for a common worldly goal (i.e., “world peace”)? It is just not there.
Lastly, whether the pope means “praying together” or “praying at the same time,” really makes no practical difference. Even if we put the best spin on the words, the fact remains that John Paul is commanding Catholics to do what he did at Assisi. His words in Redemptor Hominis 6 are clear: “What we have just said must also be applied...to...non-Christian religions.” The words “must be applied” is a mandate, not a request. This is not just a one time event occurring at Assisi, but it is to be the regular practice of each and every Catholic.
In other words, using Assisi as the model, each Catholic home should invite members of pagan religions from their neighborhoods to pray, either in different rooms of the house at the same time or in the same room. Both groups can bring their prayer lists before God, as long as they are of the more mundane variety (e.g., world peace). Both groups can address God by using the customary names: Catholics will address him as “Our Father;” pagans, whether with us in the same room or in another room, will address him as “The Great Thumb” or “Allah” or “Buddah,” but both of us will be praying to the same God. And, of course, we must explain to our children why we can address God with different names, and why the pagans must pray in a separate room, even though they are supposedly praying to the same God we are praying. And since the pagans are praying in a separate room, we must then explain to them why, if we are praying to the same God for the same thing, we are somehow holier than they are at prayer time. As anyone with common sense can see, there is something seriously wrong with this picture, yet we are told that “it must be applied.”
With that in mind, we are reminded of the words of the late Cardinal Silvio Oddi describing the scene at Assisi 1986 with these words: “On the day...I walked through Assisi...And I saw real profanations in some places of prayer. I saw Buddhists dancing around the altar upon which they placed Buddha in the place of Christ and then incensed it and showed it reverence. A Benedictine protested and the police took him away...There was obvious confusion in the faces of the Catholics who were assisting at the ceremony” (30 Days, “Confissoes de um Cardeal,” Nov. 1990)
Mr. Shea: I’m not seeing an affirmation that “We’re all really saying the same thing.” Far from it, I see the same clear statement of Dominus Iesus and Lumen Gentium that in the Catholic faith alone the fullness of God’s revelation subsists. Same deal on the distinction between the baptized and unbaptized. I’m still tracking.
R. Sungenis: Granted, but prayer is not revelation. According to the Catechism, prayer is a sacred act performed by people who are covenanted with God. Revelation, on the other hand, comes in various forms to all people. Some receive it from Scripture and Oral Inspiration; some receive it directly in a dream or vision; some only receive it written on their hearts.
The distinction between general revelation and personal prayer is noted in the way the Catechism defines prayer (the very Catechism John Paul II approved):
” Christian prayer is a covenant relationship between God and man in Christ. It is the action of God and of man, springing forth from both the Holy Spirit and ourselves, wholly directed to the Father, in union with the human will of the Son of God made man” (Para 2564).
The Catechism also says:
“There is no other way of Christian prayer than Christ. Whether our prayer is communal or personal, vocal or interior, it has access to the Father only if we pray ‘in the name’ of Jesus. The sacred humanity of Jesus is therefore the way by which the Holy Spirit teaches us to pray to God our Father” (Para 2664).
One can hardly get a distorted view of what constitutes proper prayer than from these clear words in the Catechism. I think it is obvious that pagan religions do not have any of the characteristics the Catechism requires in order to pray to God. In fact, the Catechism’s extensive commentary on prayer (paragraphs 2558-2865) does not contain one word about pagan religions praying to God, and thus obviously the Catechism teaches us nothing concerning the solicitation of pagan prayers for help with the world’s concerns. For that matter, there is not one teaching in the entire Catechism which speaks of non-Christian prayer, unless, of course, it is to repent of their sins and turn to God for salvation. END
JPII did a wonderful job at getting rid of the Bernadin's, Mahoney's, Weakland's, etc. and replacing them with the Chaput, Bruskewitz, Dolan, etc. not only within the US Catholic Church but the USCCB leadership.
He restored the Catholic Church and along with Ratzinger started to take back the US Catholic Church from the cancer that has existed since the beginning thrust of Liberation Theology and the caustic, cancerous, poisonous 60's.
“all 5 Vatican II popes are not even Catholic.”
Ridiculous.
“We don’t follow any priest, bishop, or pope who teaches error.”
Please send me an addendum to the Catechism of Verdugo.
You are living in an altered state of reality. You need to read more than your parish bulletin.
JPII didn’t replace/remove Bernadin, Mahoney, Weakland or anyone like them. Chaput, Bruskewitz, and Dolan are rare birds.
The Catholic Church is far from even beginning to be “restored” from the cancer of the 60’s. In European Catholic countries scaresly 5% of Catholics go to mass. In Brazil, the largest Catholic country in the world, less than 7% go to mass. AND the priesthood is known as a homosexual occupation. The future priests of the world are now coming from South America, not the USA. Liberation theology and homosexual priests are what are coming out of these seminaries.
Get on a plane and go visit a seminary in Brazil. Anyone can see it. What is Rome doing about it? NOTHING!
You are living in an altered state of reality. You need to read more than your parish bulletin.
Please send me an addendum to the Catechism of Verdugo.
What was common knowledge to any Catholic yesterday, is today a revelation. Learn your faith. We don't follow error:
Pope Innocent III said “It is quite conceivable that a future Pope may teach heresy and put himself outside the Church in which case we must not follow him” He did not say he ceases to be Pope. He reminds his successors that “the less a person is judged by humans the harder he will be judged by God.” Is it possible that out of 3000 bishops only 2 remained faithful to tradition? Yes, we have seen this historically with Pope Liberius & St. Athanasius.
“Is it possible that out of 3000 bishops only 2 remained faithful to tradition? Yes”
Let us know how your new church is going.
One of the "traditions" they are talking about is in Mortalium Animos, (and all the 1900 years of Church teaching which Mortaliium Animos was simply a continuation of). Only two bishops stood up to JPII and his 1986 Assisi ecumeniacal get together with false religions of every kind. ONLY two bishops stood up for the faith in the whole world, just two: Abp. Marcel Lefevbre, and Antonio Castro de Mayer the Bishop of the Diocese of Campos, Brazil.
Find me one bishop today who is not going against all of 1900+ years of tradition with regard to ecumenism!
Subject: ECUMENISM
Solemn Pronouncements from Dogmatic Counsels, and Papal Encyclicals:
Council of Carthage, 418
One must neither pray nor sing psalms with heretics, and whosoever shall communicate with those who are cut off from the communion of the church, whether clergy or layman; let him be excommunicated.
III Council of Constantinople, 680
If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or the meeting-houses of the heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion. If any bishop or priest or deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended from communion.
Code of Canon Law, 1917
#1258 - 1. It is not permitted at all for the faithful to assist in any active manner at or to have any part in the worship of non-Catholics.
Excerps from "Mortalium Animos", Encyclical of Pope Pius XI, On Religious Unity, January 6, 1928.
2. A similar object is aimed at by some, in those matters which concern the New Law promulgated by Christ our Lord. For since they hold it for certain that men destitute of all religious sense are very rarely to be found, they seem to have founded on that belief a hope that the nations, although they differ among themselves in certain religious matters, will without much difficulty come to agree as brethren in professing certain doctrines, which form as it were a common basis of the spiritual life. For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little. turn aside to naturalism andatheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.
3. But some are more easily deceived by the outward appearance of good when there is question of fostering unity among all Christians.
4. Is it not right, it is often repeated, indeed, even consonant with duty, that all who invoke the name of Christ should abstain from mutual reproaches and at long last be united in mutual charity? Who would dare to say that he loved Christ, unless he worked with all his might to carry out the desires of Him, Who asked His Father that His disciples might be "one"[1]. And did not the same Christ will that His disciples should be marked out and distinguished from others by this characteristic, namely that they loved one another: "By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another"[2]? All Christians, they add, should be as "one": for then they would be much more powerful in driving out the pest of irreligion, which like a serpent daily creeps further and becomes more widely spread, and prepares to rob the Gospel of its strength. These things and others that class of men who are known as pan-Christians continually repeat and amplify; and these men, so far from being quite few and scattered, have increased to the dimensions of an entire class, and have grouped themselves into widely spread societies, most of which are directed by non-Catholics, although they are imbued with varying doctrines concerning the things of faith. This undertaking is so actively promoted as in many places to win for itself the adhesion of a number of citizens, and it even takes possession of the minds of very many Catholics and allures them with the hope of bringing about such a union as would be agreeable to the desires of Holy Mother Church, who has indeed nothing more at heart than to recall her erring sons and to lead them back to her bosom. But in reality beneath these enticing words and blandishments lies hid a mostgrave error, by which the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed.
5. Admonished, therefore, by the consciousness of Our Apostolic office that We should not permit the flock of the Lord to be cheated by dangerous fallacies, We invoke, Venerable Brethren, your zeal in avoiding this evil; for We are confident that by the writings and words of each one of you the people will more easily get to know and understand those principles and arguments which We are about to set forth, and from which Catholics will learn how they are to think and act when there is question of those schemes which have for their end the union in one body, whatsoever be the manner, of all who call themselves Christians.
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.
9. These pan-Christians who turn their minds to uniting the churches seem, indeed, to pursue the noblest of ideas in promoting charity among all Christians: nevertheless how does it happen that this charity tends to injure faith? Everyone knows that John himself, the Apostle of love, who seems to reveal in his Gospel the secrets of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and who never ceased to impress on the memories of his followers the new commandment "Love one another," altogether forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt version of Christ's teaching: "If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you"[18]. For which reason, since charity is based on a complete and sincere faith, the disciples of Christ must be united principally by the bond of one faith. 10. So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.