The Issue of Assisi: Robert Sungenis responds to CUF representative James Likoudis

R. Sungenis: I am responding to a series of letters written by James Likoudis concerning the Assisi Interfaith Prayer Meetings that took place this past January. Several people had written to Mr. Likoudis who were upset and troubled by the Assisi meetings. In the correspondence, my name was mentioned as being one who has grave objections to the Assisi meetings. Mr. Likoudis responds to these inquiries, which are recorded below. In his responses, Mr. Likoudis spares no time in trying to defend the Assisi meetings, and at the same time, making it appear as if I am promoting disunity by objecting to Assisi. I am taking this opportunity to defend myself against his charges.

Before I do so, let me say that what I see in Mr. Likoudis is the same I see in many apologists of late. They usually have no problem condemning cardinals, bishops and priests for their aberrations in faith and morals, but when it comes to the pope, they simply will not question any of his words or actions. For some odd reason, they think the pope is immune not only from making mistakes, but he is equally immune from question, even if one might suspect that he is doing something wrong. Alas, as the old saying goes, many Catholic apologists today find themselves 'between a rock and a hard place.'

Since they have resolved in their collective minds that the pope can do no wrong, they simply must support every single thing he says and does, even if they have honest objections. They are fearful that once they question one thing, no matter how legitimate the objection may be, this will open them up to what is called "the slippery slope" of questioning a multitude of things.

Thus, the only thing they can do is support everything the pope says and does, and likewise accuse those who don't support everything he does as being dissenters or causing disunity.

Although I sympathize with their fears, unfortunately, most of them, including Mr. Likoudis, seem to have bypassed the basis of unity and the right of redress afforded by both Canon Law and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Although I transcribed these documents at the beginning of my essay "No, No to Assisi" (which appears on our website, and which Mr. Likoudis has supposedly read), no one seems to want to comment on them. Nevertheless, they are the Church's teaching, and anyone who disagrees with them is himself causing disunity among the Catholic faithful. Here are the documents:

"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" (Canon 212-2, 3).

"The willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the Magisterium on matters per se not irreformable must be the rule. It can happen, however, that a theologian may, according to the case, raise questions regarding the timeliness, the form, or even the contents of magisterial interventions." (Decree on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, 24).

Interlocutor: Dear Mr. James Likoudis, President-emeritus Catholics United for the Faith:

As a catholic, I'm having a hard time with some of the pope's more extreme ecumenical gestures. I don't see how it's right to invite people like the "high priest of Voodo" to Assisi for the purpose of encouraging him and other enemies of God to pray. Robert Sungenis' article is hard to answer:

A bunch of pseudo-problems have been created by those who, in fact, appear to resist the teachings of the Second Vatican Council on religious liberty, ecumenism, and efforts to establish friendly contacts with non-Christians.

R. Sungenis: We already see Mr. Likoudis trying to minimize the issue. Notice that he said, "efforts to establish contacts with non-Christians," rather than, as what really happened at Assisi, that pagans were praying to false gods and Catholics were asked to pray alongside them to the Christian God. I am not against having "contacts" with non-Christians. I have contacts with them all the time. My neighborhood is filled with non-Christians. We talk together, and sometimes even play together. But there is one thing we don't do, and that is pray together. Most of them have enough sense to know that we don't have the same deity, and they would hardly think of asking me to pray with them.

James Likoudis: 1) Ecumenical efforts are with baptized Christians, not others, and it is an Ecumenical Council which has relaxed the stricter discipline prohibiting closer contacts such as common prayer with dissidents (which was a feature of the Counter-Reformation period and its polemical context).This relaxed discipline is not a break with Tradition but with certain traditions (canonical and liturgical) which were considered necessary for the times of Counter-Reformation religious warfare.

R. Sungenis: Granted, but as I said in my essay, "No, No, to Assisi," the common prayer that was allowed by Vatican II with "dissidents" was for the express purpose of leading them back to the Catholic Church, and under the assumption that these non-Catholic Christians were praying to the same God as we Catholics. Vatican II does not teach that we are to seek prayer with other Christians as an exercise in the virtues of prayer. Vatican II had enough sense to stipulate that non-Catholic Christians were not a ecclesial entity amongst themselves that just happened to intersect with Catholics in regards to whom they direct their prayers. Vatican II, as I detailed in my essay, still considered non-Catholic Christians as outsiders who were urged to rejoin the Catholic Church (just as the Counter-Reformation did) at the risk of losing their own souls if they deliberately rejected membership in the Catholic Church.

As for Mr. Likoudis' comment that prayer with dissidents is now acceptable since Vatican II rejected those ideas "which were considered necessary for the times of Counter-Reformation religious warfare," I wonder where he finds that in the documents of Vatican II? Vatican II did not base their directives concerning common prayer on a rejection of the Counter-Reformation. They based it on the need to bring back the dissidents to the Catholic Church.

Moreover, did Vatican II suddenly teach that the "warfare" was over? No, that is just a character-type that Mr. Likoudis is trying to create in the mind of his reader in order to justify the extremes people like himself have taken from Vatican II. I can testify to you very assuredly that the Protestant "warfare" against the Catholic Church is not over. If you don't believe me, listen to some of the debates I've had with Protestants over the last ten years. In fact, there are thousands more denominations than there ever were during the Reformation period who will stop at nothing to see the downfall of the Catholic Church. If anything, we have more "warfare" today than we did 475 years ago. The only difference is that the warfare of yesteryear was confined to certain people and certain locales. The "warfare" of today against the Catholic Church is worldwide. Mr. Likoudis ought to know this, since a few years ago we both spoke at a Catholic apologetics conference in which the ideas of the Reformation were detailed and critiqued.

James Likoudis: 2) Interreligious dialogue with theists (Jews and Muslims) was also furthered by Vatican II as a step toward evangelization of these peoples in a world undergoing remarkable cultural changes after a century of Mass Murders.

R. Sungenis: I am not against "interreligious dialogue." I am against forcing Catholics to pray alongside of pagans who pray to their false gods. Vatican II had it correct. John Paul II, by forcing Catholics to pray with pagans, does not.

James Likoudis: 3) I see nothing regarding a break with Tradition in asking Voodoo Witch doctors, cannibals, or idolaters to pray at the deepest level of their being : all sincere prayer signifies: an opening to God the Creator and his graces (whether those so praying are conscious of that God or not).

R. Sungenis: If its not a "break with Tradition" to ask a Voodoo Witch doctor to pray to his false god for spiritual and physical well-being, then perhaps Mr. Likoudis can tell us where "Tradition" teaches such a thing. You'll notice that he cites no specific "Tradition" supporting his idea. If Mr. Likoudis thinks its acceptable to have a Voodoo Witch doctor pray to his false god, perhaps he can tell us what his definition of Idolatry is, since it has always been understood as praying or worshiping one's false god. Its not hard to see the grave problems into which these Apologists set themselves. They condone things that no one in their right Christian-mind should condone, and no one in all of Catholic Church history has ever condoned. Why? Because they have one overriding principle in their apologetic approach - - a principle that overrides any other concern, even overriding Scripture and Tradition, that is, that the pope can never be wrong. But as we've seen from both Canon Law and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, no distinction is made as to which "pastors" they are speaking about when they say that these "pastors" can teach or do things that are objectionable. As long as these apologists live under the myth that the pope can do no wrong, they will continue to redefine the issues, as we see Mr. Likoudis doing above as he says that asking a pagan to pray to his pagan god for world peace is perfectly acceptable.

James Likoudis: Asking them to pray in the gesture of respect for their human dignity and highest aspirations for world peace, social harmony among people, and removal of such evils as terrorism --is not an act of Catholics capitulating to syncretism or joining in pagan idolatries, or accepting false religious beliefs.

R. Sungenis: If Mr. Likoudis had left out the word "pray" in his above remarks, I would have little problem with what he says. All of Catholic history has taught us to be at peace with all men (Romans 12:18). All of Catholic history has taught that men are made in the image of God and therefore deserve our respect and love (James 3:9). But NEVER has Catholic history taught that we are to encourage pagans to pray to their false gods to satisfy their worldly needs. We have always taught them to convert to the Christian faith, and then pray to the true God who seeks to give them salvation in Jesus Christ, and blessings on earth while He does so. Mr. Likoudis simply does not understand the sacredness of prayer. Neither Vatican II, nor our current Catechism, teach that we are to ask pagans to pray to their false gods and have Catholics interpret their prayer as if they were praying to the true God. In our Church teaching, there is no shell game when it comes to prayer. Vatican II and the Catechism teach that prayer is reserved to those who are covenanted with God, not to pagans who worship false gods, and continue to do so long after the Assisi events have occurred, and with no objection from the pontificate of John Paul II.

James Likoudis: One gets the impression from some of the criticisms of extreme traditionalists and Calvinist-evangelical- Protestants that idolatrous pagans are automatically damned,

R. Sungenis: Yes, it is not correct to say that "idolatrous pagans are automatically damned." That is Calvinistic predestination at its worst. But Assisi is not an issue of whether the pagan will be damned or not. It is an issue of whether Catholics are to encourage pagans to pray to their false gods, and whether Catholics are to join side-by-side with pagans in prayer for things that are not concerned with the latter's salvation. In reality, Assisi becomes an issue of whether the Catholic who prays side-by-side with the pagan for things as mundane as "world peace" automatically damns his own soul because he has participated with and encouraged the very thing for which God condemned the Israelites in the Old Testament, and which St. Paul condemned the pagans at Mars Hill in Acts 17:29-30. Here's what St. Paul says:

29 "Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man. 30 "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, 31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead."

Do we see anything here about encouraging the pagans to pray to their false gods? Do we see anything about encouraging the pagans to use their artifices and devices (as was promoted at Assisi) to pray to their gods? Do we see anything here about "common prayer" with pagans, wherein they pray to their false god and we interpret this as praying to our God? No, none of this is here. What we do see is St. Paul resolutely directing the pagans to destroy their false gods and false notions, things that God once "overlooked" but of which he is now commanding all men everywhere to repent because Judgment Day is coming. St. Paul says that God will simply not tolerate them praying to their false gods any longer, and that He commands them to REPENT. But did we hear just one word at Assisi encouraging the pagans to forsake their false gods and turn to God in repentance of their sins? No, not one. We heard just the opposite. We heard that they ALREADY have a relationship with God through their pagan deities, so much so that they can pray alongside of us for the same spiritual and physical blessings for which we can pray. It is not hard to see that Acts 17 and Assisi are diametrically opposed.

R. Sungenis: Read Mr. Likoudis' statement again and see if you see the same oxymoron that I see. Isn't the definition of a "pagan" one who does not have communion with "God"? If he has communion with God, then he would not be a pagan, would he? The very reason we call them "pagans" is that they don't have communion with God. They have communion with their false gods. What Mr. Likoudis is trying to force us to accept is that they have communion with God through their false gods. But is that what St. Paul taught us in Acts 17:29-31? No, not by a longshot. Mr. Likoudis is trying his best to wipe away any vestige of distinction between the sacred and the profane that he can. Why? Because Mr. Likoudis' working premise is that the pope can make no mistakes. Mr. Likoudis is willing to redefine even the very word "pagan" in order to safeguard the premise with which he is working. But it is a false premise. He does more damage to the papacy in trying to refine both it and paganism than he knows.

John tells us that even a Christian who "goes too far...does not have God," let alone a pagan who worships and prays to false gods. According to John, we're not even supposed to let these people in our house, or give him a greeting, let alone pray with them. And if we do not abide by John's advice, then we "participate in his evil deeds." That is precisely what the pope is doing at Assisi - forcing Catholics to participate in their evil deeds.

James Likoudis: that they receive no graces as sinners (not even actual graces),

R. Sungenis: No, that has never been taught in Catholic history. All men receive God's graces. The men on Mars Hill were receiving God's graces (actual graces) so that they would listen to the preaching of St. Paul and repent of their sins. They can do nothing without the grace of God working in them. The Council of Orange (529 AD) and the Council of Trent (1563) were crystal clear about that teaching. The question is whether the pagans will indeed act upon the movement of actual grace, forsaking their idols and turning to the true God in repentance.

James Likoudis: and that Christ in taking upon himself human nature did not unite Himself in some mysterious way with every man born of woman.

R. Sungenis: I do not reject the idea that Christ united himself with ALL of mankind in His Incarnation. That is precisely why the men of Mars Hill can receive the actual graces of God in order to help them forsake their idols and turn to the true God in repentance from their sin. Without Christ's Incarnation none of that would be possible. In fact, St. Paul mentioned the very "mystery" about which Mr. Likoudis speaks. Paul writes in Acts 17:26-28:

But did St. Paul stop there? Did he tell the pagans of Mars Hill that all they needed was the "mystery" of God's presence among them? Certainly not. He told them in no uncertain terms that because of that "mystery" they were required to forsake their idols and turn to God in repentance, since He would no longer overlook their pagan practices. Since they have received the "mystery" of Christ in the Incarnation, they have no more excuses for worshiping and praying to their false gods.

James Likoudis: It could very well be that some of those Voodoo priests at their best may not be "far from the Kingdom of God", though lacking explicit knowledge of so many truths of Divine Revelation and the Catholic Faith.

R. Sungenis: It could also be that the Voodoo priests are actually very far from the kingdom of God. Posing hypotheticals will not prove anything for Mr. Likoudis. I hope that there ARE some Voodoo priests who are not far from the kingdom of God, for God can save Voodoo priests just as He can save the Rich Man of Mark 10. But the question is: Will the Voodoo priest and the Rich Man answer the call of God's grace and forsake their worldly ways, as St. Paul commanded in Acts 17? Or will they both walk away sad, as Jesus says, "It is impossible for a Rich Man and Voodoo priest to get into the kingdom of God" [Mark 10:20-25] since they will not forsake their pagan practices? But did we hear anything at Assisi encouraging the Voodoo priest, even if he was "close to the kingdom," to forsake his pagan ways and come to God? No, we heard just the opposite. We heard the pope tell him to continue in his pagan arts, and to consider his prayer as already being in communion with God, and not a word about him having to repent and accept the God of Christianity.

James Likoudis: Pope John Paul II has made clear on many occasions that Assissi encounters do not involve religious indifference but rather Peter casting his net as a beginning step towards the evangelization of pagan peoples who may be stimulated by contacts with Catholics to be attracted to Christ as the Way, the Truth and the Life.

R. Sungenis: First of all, I don't ever remember John Paul II using words such as "a beginning step towards the evangelization of pagan peoples." To John Paul II, the "new evangelization" is to tell the non-Christians that they ALREADY have a relationship with God, so much so that they can pray for worldly concerns and expect God to answer them. Not once did John Paul II invite any of his pagan guests to come into the Catholic Church. One would think that if Assisi was for the purpose of "beginning step[s] towards the evangelization of pagan peoples" that the Assisi of 1986 would have been preparatory, and that sixteen years later, in 2002, the pagans would then be ready to hear the gospel. But not a word of the gospel of repentance was uttered at either Assisi 1986 or Assisi 2002. The pagans were told to keep practicing their magical arts, and John Paul told them nothing about converting to the Christian faith.

Let me also add that Peter did not cast his net by encouraging pagans to pray to their false gods, especially for mundane things such as "world peace." Peter and Paul told the pagans to repent of their sins and turn to the one true God. Peter never once prayed with pagans as a step-up effort to bring them to the Gospel. The one time Peter stepped out of line (even though he was the pope of that day) and began to fraternize with profane people in an effort to soften them, St. Paul withstood him to the face and told him that he was "perverting the Gospel" (Galatians 2:9-14).

James Likoudis: Much more could be said, but I offer these considerations. One should avoid the rigidity of attitudes stemming from the desire to cling to older canonical disciplines which are no longer relevant to modern times and which actually inhibit the mission of the Church to evangelize and to assist others to help build a civilization of love (which should not be confused, however, with the spread of the Kingdom-Church itself throughout the world).

R. Sungenis: Is Vatican II an "older canonical discipline"? It must be, according to Mr. Likoudis, since Vatican II did not teach that we are to encourage pagans to pray to their false gods, nor that Catholics are to participate with them in prayer. I made that very clear in my essay, as I detailed the statements from Vatican II. Unfortunately, Mr. Likoudis did not address these important issues in his reply, yet if he read my essay as he is purported to have done, they were stated very plainly. As it stands, Mr. Likoudis is arguing against a straw man of his own choosing.

Thanks for the information about your book. I think with respect to these things the fact is if you looked at all the relevant Scripture and church documents, there would be much more against Assisi than in support. (I haven't read all the documents, to be honest.) Take the New Testament: it talks much more about separation from sin and unbelievers than it does about "the unity of mankind." I can't agree with your statement: "I see nothing regarding a break with Tradition in asking Voodoo witchdoctors, cannibals, or idolaters to pray at the deepest level of their being : all sincere prayer signifies: an opening to God the Creator and his graces (whether those so praying are conscious of that God or not)." What about Romans 1? *** Don't pagans "worship the creature, not the creator." Some pagans might be saved, but should we encourage them to find consolation in their religions by prayer? I doubt the Voodo priests came back from Assisi thinking they were risking hell. In fact, the unbelief of pagans is seldom described as a sin. (Not surpisingly, we even have Cardinals who say Jews don't need to convert to be saved. The effects on evangelization haven't been too impressive, from what I can tell.) If you aren't familiar with the series: John Paul's Theological Journey to the Prayer Meeting of Religions at Assisi by Dormann, I recommend it. It's a bit one-sided, but it is quite informative.

You have the unfortunate tendency to pay too much attention to those with a very rigid and narrow view of Tradition,

R. Sungenis: Mr. Likoudis has the unfortunate tendency of failing to show us where in Tradition, including Vatican II, that the Catholic Church has ever taught or encouraged pagans to pray to their false gods. He also fails to give us the basis for the rationale of his argument. If, as he says, objections to Assisi are based on a "very rigid and narrow view of Tradition," then it is Mr. Likoudis' responsibility to show us where Tradition, even with a less rigid and less narrow interpretation, teaches that it is permissible to encourage pagans to pray to their false gods; and where that same Tradition allows Catholics to participate with them. I suggest that Mr. Likoudis cease from trying to make his interlocutor appear biased, while he himself utterly fails to support his own position, except his with his own opinions.

James Likoudis: who ignore the special charism of the Successor of Peter in guiding the Church into the much changed world of the Third Millenium,

R. Sungenis: No one is denying that the papal office enjoys a "special charism," but that doesn't mean that the pope himself cannot ignore that charism. There is no Church teaching that says anything to the contrary. Mr. Likoudis makes it sound as if John Paul II does not have a free will to obey or disobey the charism he has. He makes it sound as if the pope is just some automaton who, in every case, can only do the bidding of God. If he thinks so, then Mr. Likoudis needs a lesson on Church history. Not only have there been a number of popes who have been notorious sinners, but there have also been a number who have made mistakes in spiritual matters, albeit they were not of an ex cathedra nature.

James Likoudis: and who are intent upon mixing oranges and apples ( thereby combining different doctrinal and disciplinary issues which should be separated for evaluation).

R. Sungenis: And what may those "doctrinal and disciplinary issues" be? Mr. Likoudis doesn't tell us. He continually speaks in generalities, not citing one Church document to support his claims in any of his discourse thus far. His are high-sounding words, and they appear to put a burden on his interlocutor, but in reality, they say nothing of any significance. If Mr. Likoudis wants to make an impression, then he needs to be specific.

James Likoudis: Dormann is a schismatic and is hardly a reliable authority to be trusted with his irresponsible charges of heresy against Pope John Paul II. Schismatic "Trads" like him judge the Pope as contradicting their own private and "scholarly" understanding of Tradition just as Protestants judge the Pope as contradicting their own private and literalist understanding of Scripture.

R. Sungenis: We can certainly agree that a schismatic has his own agenda and is separated from the Church. But listen to the argument Mr. Likoudis is using. Prior to this paragraph, he told his interlocutor: "I see nothing regarding a break with Tradition in asking Voodoo Witch doctors, cannibals, or idolaters to pray at the deepest level of their being." Thus, Mr. Likoudis' premise is that Assisi is not a break with Tradition. But has Mr. Likoudis cited the Tradition which he feels Assisi is not breaking? No, not at all. He just keeps referring to "Tradition" as if merely mentioning the word is somehow going to prove his point. But here are the facts: John Paul II did not cite any "Tradition" which allowed him to create the Assisi prayer meetings. In short, John Paul cited no precedent for his actions. So is it really a case of a "very rigid and narrow" view of Tradition that Mr. Likoudis finds so easy to throw against his opponents? No, it can't be, since no Tradition was cited to support Assisi. Why? Because there is no Tradition supporting Assisi. Not even Vatican II supported Assisi.

James Likoudis: For example, to accuse Pope John Paul II of violating Pope Pius XI's teaching against the Catholics of his time seeking a "One World Religion" is ludicrous. Pope John Paul II has made it quite clear that the Catholic Church is Our Lord's true Church, constitutes a "One World Religion" that already exists, and whose missionary work to the pagans of today is an essential part of its Catholicity.

R. Sungenis: The issue is not whether John Paul II believes that the Catholic Church is the one, true Church. The issue is whether John Paul II has the authority, based on Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium, to teach and encourage pagan religions to pray to their false gods for worldly concerns, and to force Catholics to participate alongside of them. We cannot allow Mr. Likoudis to side-track the issue by steering it into a matter of whether John Paul II is Catholic or not. The only issue on the table is: Did John Paul II do something licit or illicit when he organized the Assisi prayer meetings? Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium say he did do something wrong, since none of those sources make any statement allowing such prayer meetings. If Mr. Likoudis thinks otherwise, then the burden is on him to show us where Scripture, Tradition or the Magisterium DID do so. By the way, it will do no good to argue that John Paul II is the "Magisterium" in this case, since the popes prior to John Paul II have stated that no novelties in faith and morals will be accepted in the Catholic Church. John Paul II cannot create new practices in faith and morals. He can only preserve those that have already been taught by the Church. So unless Mr. Likoudis can show us the precedent for Assisi in Scripture, Tradition or the Magisteriums prior to John Paul II, then he simply doesn't have a leg to stand on, and then he must admit that John Paul II has disobeyed and/or ignored the "special charism" given to him.

James Likoudis: The Church's message of salvation cannot be sacrificed to modern errors that pagans are already "anonymous Christians" and that there is no need today to say with St. Paul: "Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel". Certainly, no other Pope in the history of the Church has travelled world-wide to be witnessed by millions of pagans as preaching Christ as the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and noting the Church as necessary for salvation and whose teachings are essential for the human development of the human person. The Church presses on for the unity of mankind in Christ and the Church, but it does not ignore the Church's subsidiary role in contributing to respect for human dignity and elevating human culture and civilization.

R. Sungenis: Previously, Mr. Likoudis accused his interlocutor of mixing "oranges and apples," but his above paragraph does just that. No one will argue that John Paul II has not preached Christ as the Way, the Truth and the Life, but that has nothing to do with Assisi. Assisi has to do with telling pagans to pray to their false gods for spiritual favors, and forcing Catholics to participate with them on the notion that a prayer to a false god is really a prayer to the true God. Assisi has to do with failing to tell the pagans, for the sixteen years between Assisi I in 1986 and Assisi II in 2002, to stop praying to their false gods, to abandon their false religions, and to convert to Christianity. Assisi has to do with creating a sheer novelty in the Catholic Church that has absolutely no precedent from either Scripture, Tradition or the previous Magisterium. Assisi has to do with scandalizing faithful Catholics all over the world by making it appear, as Vittorio Messori (the co-author of Crossing the Threshold of Hope) said, "that one religion is as good as another." John Paul II can travel the world and preach the gospel all he wants, but the minute he crosses the line of propriety and encourages pagans to pray to their own gods and forces Catholics to participate with them under the guise of "world peace," we no longer have the gospel of Christ being preached, but a gospel of man's own devising.

James Likoudis: There are texts in Scripture which condemn formal idolatry, but there are other texts indicating God's love for idolaters, and as Fr. Morselli has stated in following St. Thomas Aquinas, their religious practices can be said to reveal obedience to the natural law of God to practice the virtue of religion, and an implicit faith in God the Creator of all men.

R. Sungenis: First of all, God loves all people. The Gospel plainly tells us that He causes his sun to shine on the wicked and the good alike (Matt 5:40-48). It tells us that He is not slow concerning His promise to return, since He wishes that all men would come to repentance (2Pet 3:9). So this is not an issue whether God "loves" idolators.

Second, no one will argue that the religious rites of pagans reveal their compulsion to obey natural law. Romans 2:14-15 is very clear about that. As I said in my essay, Thomas Aquinas was speaking about men who never heard about Jesus Christ, and so was St. Paul. But Assisi has nothing to do with any of these things. Mr. Likoudis is again mixing oranges and apples. Assisi has to do with the CATHOLIC CHURCH, when they had the opportunity, failing to tell the pagans to forsake praying to their idols and to turn to Christ. It has to do with the CATHOLIC CHURCH, when they had the opportunity, failing to tell the pagans to repent of their sin because Judgment Day is coming, as St. Paul so eloquently told the pagans of Mars Hill in Acts 17:29-31. It has to do with the CATHOLIC CHURCH, when they had the opportunity to do so, failing to tell the pagans that previously God "overlooked" their idol worship but since the dawn of Jesus Christ, God will no longer tolerate their pagan practices.

It has to do with the CATHOLIC CHURCH, when she had to opportunity to do so, failing to protect her own children from mingling with pagan practices.

James Likoudis: Moreover, it is hardly a sin for the Pope to invite unbelievers to pray!

R. Sungenis: Notice how Mr. Likoudis is trying to make it sound as if Assisi is merely a matter of inviting "unbelievers" to pray. He does this, apparently, to make it appear that objectors to Assisi are like Pharisees who prohibit people from coming to God. But that is far from the truth. Scripture is filled with instances of "unbelievers" coming to God in prayer, but what kind of prayer is it? It is a prayer of repentance and of acceptance of the true God of Christianity, in every single case. We should always invite unbelievers to pray, but we also tell them to whom they should pray and what kind of prayers they should be offering to God.

James Likoudis: As Fr. Morelli notes, the Pope has never said, "Pray to your false god", but "Pray as best as you can" in following your conscience which can always be further illuminated by the true God.

R. Sungenis: The pope didn't have to say "Pray to your false god," since the pagan participants were already told before they came to Assisi that they would be praying by their ordinary and usual practices, and using their customary implements of worship. That is why the snake charmers brought their snakes, and the Buddhists brought a statue of Buddah, and other pagans brought a statute of The Great Thumb, and other pagans brought wood chips to burn on their altar before their god. So when the pope says, "pray as best you can," he already knows what kind of prayer they are going to offer -- it is going to be a prayer to a false god. According to John Paul II, there is no difference in praying directly to the true God as opposed to praying to one's false god, since both prayers apparently go to the same individual. In essence, pagan idolatry is not really pagan idolatry any longer. It is just another means to reach the true God, in whatever form it comes. No wonder the pope didn't tell them to convert to Christianity. Why should they if they already have access to God and all His blessings via their false god?

James Likoudis: Fr. Morselli makes an excellent point in noting that "the invitation to unbelievers to pray is NOT a formal participation in an act of false religion, but it is a formal invitation to be religious, to follow natural law."

R. Sungenis: First, who said the issue is one of "formal participation in an act of false religion"? If Catholics were forced to pray to false gods, that would be a "formal participation in an act of false religion." Fortunately, the pope hasn't gone to those lengths. Nevertheless, notice how, in order to defend himself and Fr. Morselli, Mr. Likoudis has to start making hairline distinctions, e.g., between "formal" and "informal." I guess in his mind its okay to participate "informally," just as long as you don't cross the line and do it "formally." I wonder where either Scripture, Tradition or the Magisterium has made such a distinction in regard to pagan prayers?

Second, as for Assisi being a "formal invitation to be religious, to follow natural law," the Church, in all its history, has invited all men to "be religious and follow natural law." She has always urged men to follow the dictates of their consciences and to have those consciences informed as best as possible. But the Church has never sought to accomplish this by telling the pagans to pray to their own gods. When the issue involved prayer and worship, the Church always drew the line in the sand. She told the pagans that in order to pray to God they needed to first offer a prayer of repentance, and then they needed to convert to Christianity, and accept the means of prayer that is found only in Christianity.

Third, speaking of "formal," did not the pope issue a "formal" invitation to these pagan religions to come to Assisi to pray to their gods? Did he not set up "formal" booths and cubicles for each of them so that they could pray to their gods? Did he not organize a "formal" meeting with all of them in the hall of Assisi and allow them to give speeches regarding their beliefs and to whom they prayed? Did he not "formally" give them his blessing and send them home to their countries without a word about forsaking their false gods and converting to Christianity? How much more "formal" do we have to get to call it "formal"?

James Likoudis: Moreover, as all good missionaries know, "the first step to conversion is the observance of natural law." Particularly downplayed by the Pope's detractors is the truth (denied by ______ and those attributing to unbeliving pagans a total malice and corruption of heart) that the negative unbelief of pagans in good faith may not be culpable before God and is not a sin.

R. Sungenis: Mr. Likoudis keeps trapping himself. He admits that the first step to conversion is the observance of natural law. Granted. That's what happened to Cornelius in Acts 10. He obeyed the natural law and then God came and blessed him for it. God led Peter to baptize Cornelius and accept him into the Catholic Church. Is that what the pope did at Assisi? No, not at all. He used natural law to encourage the pagans to pray to their own gods. For sixteen years between Assisi I and Assisi II the pope has not mentioned one word to the pagans about converting to the Christian faith and being baptized for salvation, the very opposite of what happened to Cornelius. In fact, the pope apparently believes that the pagans have no need to convert, since they already know God well enough to pray to Him, via their own gods, for world peace, and need not be concerned about whether they have received salvation in the first place.

James Likoudis: In such pagans, therefore, their collaboration with the Church in working for such natural goods as "world peace and justice" can well be a "sort of natural preparation to receive grace" --and especially the grace of faith in Christ and His Church.

R. Sungenis: No argument here. As St. Paul said in Romans 12:18, "If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men." We should all strive for peace in the world. We also hope that our example will lead these pagans to accept the grace of God and turn to His Church. But do we ever find St. Paul telling the Church to encourage the pagans to receive God's grace by praying to their own gods? No, we find exactly the opposite. I've already belabored that point by referring to Acts 17. St. Paul told them to forsake their idols; that God would not overlook their pagan practices any longer; that they needed to repent of their sin and turn to Christianity; that Judgment Day was coming in which God will cast sinners into Hell.

James Likoudis: I conclude on this note. The Pope's acts (however at first troubling to you and others) can well be justified by a long theological tradition in the Church which has noted the seeds of natural religion and supernatural grace operative among pagans of good will.

R. Sungenis: Mr. Likoudis is mixing oranges and apples again. No one is arguing that the pagans do not have natural law and actual grace. Yes, there is a "long theological tradition" teaching concerning that reality. But there is no "long theological tradition" which teaches that the Catholic Church is to enhance natural law and actual grace by telling pagans to pray to their own gods, and then sending them home without a word about converting to Christianity to save their souls. As long as Mr. Likoudis tries to keep making this an issue of natural law and actual grace, then I simply have to say that his answer is as deceptive as the Assisi meetings themselves. Mr. Likoudis is only giving us a half-truth, and in many cases, a half-truth is as good as a lie.

James Likoudis: It is a dangerous thing to twist Scriptural passages with their severity concerning pagans who are culpable for their positive unbelief as equally applicable to the "good pagans" for whom "the Light of Christ will always shine where, simply, the windows of the soul are open." (St. Hilary of Poitiers).

R. Sungenis: "Twist Scriptural passages"? What scriptural passage has Mr. Likoudis exegeted in this dialogue, or what scriptural passages is he referring to which he claims that others are twisting? Romans 2:14-15? If so, where does Romans 2:14-15 speak about the Church encouraging pagans to pray to their own gods? Again, Mr. Likoudis continues to speak in generalities.

As for his quote of Hilary, perhaps Mr. Likoudis can tell us one place where Hilary taught that in order to make the "light of Christ shine on the soul" that we encourage pagans to pray to their own gods and never tell them about their responsibility to convert to Christ? Perhaps he can tell us where Hilary, or any Father for that matter, taught that Catholics and pagans can pray alongside each other for worldly concerns. As it stands, Mr. Likoudis is long on accusations but short on evidence.

As for "twisting scriptural passages," perhaps Mr. Likoudis would like to take a long look at Acts 17:29-31 where St. Paul speaks to the pagans of Mars Hill. Perhaps he can tell us what it means when St. Paul tells the pagans to forsake their idols of gold and silver; that God will not excuse their pagan practices any longer; that they are commanded to repent of their sins and turn to Christ; and that if they don't then God will condemn on Judgment Day. As it stands, Mr. Likoudis has not made reference to any such Scriptural passages; nor has he cited any Tradition of the Church; nor any Magisterial statement that teaches that the Catholic Church is to encourage pagans to pray to their own gods as an act of grace. It simply is not there, and Mr. Likoudis' silence on the issue is deafening.

James Likoudis: The Fathers of the Church for all their severity against culpable schismatics, heretics, and apostates did not understand Scripture or the Tradition of their predecessors as the Pope's present critics do.

R. Sungenis: Apparently Mr. Likoudis thinks the Fathers did not have any severity against pagans. If that is the case, then either he hasn't read the Fathers, or he chooses to ignore what they said about pagans. Mr. Likoudis is apparently under the false impression that if he just makes one glib quote from Hilary (a quote that is completely taken out of context) then he has made the case for the Fathers and concludes that all of them would agree with him that what the pope has done at Assisi is acceptable. As I said above, perhaps Mr. Likoudis can cite passages from the Fathers where they say that it is proper to encourage pagans to pray to their own gods for earthly needs. I'll bet you that Mr. Likoudis cannot find one statement in any Father, let alone a major consensus of the Fathers.

"Deep in human nature (and so in every man) the image of God is imprinted, that is, a quality that constitutes in it-and even without it- a kind of secret call to the object of the full and supernatural revelation brought by Christ....It follows immediately (from the truth that in the Incarnation the Word assumed all human nature) that every man, Christian or not, orientated towards God or not, whatever his knowledge or lack of it, has an organic link with Christ--- and has it in such a way that he cannot lose it. But this primordial relationship is altogether different from that uniting the members of the Mystical Body [the visible hierarchical Catholic Church] with their Divine Head. They alone are the beneficiaries of this latter union who have received Christ and have made Him welcome, in an explicit or implicit manner. In other words, by virtue of the assumption of all human nature by the Word Incarnate, a primordial, essential and inalienable bond unites all men to Christ. This is what is sometimes called the 'inclusion' of all humanity in Christ. And this must be carefully distinguished from the visible unity characterizing the members of the Mystical Body, the Church. The mere fact of being man who may be living in the state of supernatural grace does not entail being members of the One Church of Christ, i.e., those who acknowledgein an explicit manner their Divine Savior.But the Church has always recognized that there have always been secret operations of the Spirit of Christ among the pagan peoples, and has confessed in Vatican II that 'By her action, the Church brings it about that everything of good that is sown in the human heart and mind, in the rites and cultures of peoples, not only does not perish but is purified, uplifted and consummated, for the glory of God, the confusion of the devil and the happiness of mankind.'(n.17) The Church respects both natural and supernatural goods and furthers both. The Pope's present critics and detractors do not, and prefer to fall back on narrow theological perspectives which the Church has found inadequate in understanding the fullness of Catholic Tradition regarding the salvation of souls."

R. Sungenis: All well and good, but what does any of this have to do with telling pagans to pray to their own gods for worldly peace? The Church has always taught that all the good of mankind is pressed into service for God and the confusion of the devil, but where has the Church taught that this is accomplished by telling pagans to pray to their own gods? Where has the Church taught that we send these pagans home with the notion that they can continue to pray to their false gods and expect to get answers? Where has the Church taught that our utmost concern for pagans is that their world on earth is peaceful without telling them of the horrors of Hell that await them in the next life if they don't repent of their sins? Again, Mr. Likoudis is mixing oranges and apples, and more importantly, leading us down a wrong path by his out-of-context citations.

As I said, I don't agree with everthing in the Dormann books, nor do I agree with some of the rhetoric in magazines like the publication I mentioned. However, the question is does that mean these people are in "schism." I don't know what principle of theology that says that people who believe the pope has gone "too far" in ecumenical/interreligious events are somehow are in schism with the Church. Is that what you think? Concerning JP II, I don't think he is a heretic, but I have to conclude that some of the language in Redemptor Hominis is reckless or unclear. I have read what Fr. Morelli posted, and I think Sungenis provides a good response. I believe it is a sin to encourage non-Christians to pray. First, they are praying to a different god. Second, when they pray they are finding consolation in what they believe, which (although it may contain some truth) is on the whole false. As I pointed out, when the religious "leaders" came back from Assisi, they were no doubt comforted in their beliefs and probably felt that the Pope was endorsing their beliefs. I don't agree with the "show biz" papacy of JP II, but he certainly has a lot of credibility in the eyes of many non-believers. Yes, there is some truth in pagan religions (and in just about any other system of thought). But our message to them shouldn't be "pray as best as you can," but rather "repent and believe in the Triune God." Also, we should encourage people to follow the natural law, but being "religious" is not necessarily a good thing. It is leading them to harden their hearts. I'm sure CUF does many good things, but blindly supporting the Pope isn't what the Church needs now.

It is not enough to say you do not agree with the Dormann books nor with all the rhetoric of the publication I mentioned. Dormann is definitely a schismatic whose books are dangerous to faith, and you have yet to come to grips with the publication I mentioned, writers who reveal more than just "rhetoric" but, in Dave Armstrong's words, a "quasi-schismatic mentality" which "allows one to criticize Pope, Mass, and Council alike all day long, with never-ending moaning and groaning and breast-beating, sometimes in conspiratorial, apocalyptic, Chicken little proportions. I don't think it is very helpful for the life of the Church, and in some respects it is as bad or worse than being a schismatic, for it is still within the Church, adversely affecting the faith and outlook of others".

R. Sungenis: Mr. Armstrong's choice of derogatory words ("never-ending moaning and groaning and breast-beating, sometimes in conspiratorial, apocalyptic, Chicken little proportions") is the typical way that people of this persuasion combat their opponents. Mr. Likoudis has done a little of the same in this present dialogue with his interlocutors. The goal is to make the objectors look like insane fanatics who are merely on a quest for self-aggranzidment. Unfortunately, Mr. Armstrong has not come to grips with what the Church herself has said about the prerogative of her members to question and object to her practices. Let me quote them again:

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).

"The willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the Magisterium on matters per se not irreformable must be the rule. It can happen, however, that a theologian may, according to the case, raise questions regarding the timeliness, the form, or even the contents of magisterial interventions." (Decree on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, 24).

"If, despite a loyal effort on the theologian's part, the difficulties [with a non-infallible teaching] persist, the theologian has the duty to make known to the Magisterial authorities the problems raised by the teaching in itself, in the arguments proposed to justify it, or even in the manner in which it is presented." (Decree on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, 31).

James Likoudis: This attitude falls short of being a faithful, obedient Catholic.

R. Sungenis: As it stands, according to Canon Law and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it is Mr. Likoudis who is not being a faithful and obedient Catholic, since he, in defiance of Canon Law and the CDF, will not allow sincere Catholics to pose their questions, concerns and objections to their pastors.

James Likoudis: It is now a favorite shibboleth of those betraying a "quasi-schismatic mentality" to accuse faithful Catholics of "blind obedience" and "papolatry".

R. Sungenis: As long as Mr. Likoudis operates under the false impression that only cardinals, bishops and priests are not immune from making mistakes, then he has put the pope on a pedestal that simply cannot be supported by either the Magisterium, Scripture, or Tradition. As I noted before, Mr. Likoudis is under the false impression that because the pope has a "special charism" this means that he cannot make a mistake in anything he does regarding spiritual practices. But he fails to understand that the pope, in his practices, can ignore the special charism. We have had several popes in our history who have done so. In taking his stand, Mr. Likoudis actually weakens the papacy, not make it stronger.

James Likoudis: The same accusations were hurled at the defenders of Blessed Pius IX in the midst of Vatican I by those on the verge of schism and heresy, and now the same cries are heard defaming Catholics defending Pope John Paul II against misinterpretations of his acts and teachings.

R. Sungenis: Mr. Likoudis is again mixing orange and apples. Pius IX's declaration in Pastor Aeternus was an infallible, ex cathedra dogma for the Catholic Church to follow. Assisi is not an infallible, ex cathedra dogma, and doesn't even come close. Canon Law and the CDF both prohibit Catholics from defying ex cathera declarations, but neither of them prohibit Catholics from questioning the goings-on at Assisi.

James Likoudis: Much can be said concerning Sungenis' views which have proved to be very disappointing as I have much admired his work. I will simply once again note the danger of taking in a rigid literalist manner Scriptural quotations and pitting them against the fuller theological tradition of the Church as found in the best theologians and clarifications of the Magisterium.

R. Sungenis: Again, what "rigid literalist" interpretation of Scripture is Mr. Likoudis referring to? What "fuller theological traditions" has Mr. Likoudis cited that support his contention that the Church is to encourage pagans to pray to their own gods? What "clarifications" has the Magisterium officially disseminated that supports the practice of encouraging pagans to pray to their own gods? I know for a fact that many in the Magisterium were opposed to the Assisi meetings. As for the "best theologians," who might they be? For every one that Mr. Likoudis can find I know just as many that are deeply disturbed by Assisi.

James Likoudis: For example, Sungenis declares baldly that "God does not hear the prayers of sinners" (quoting Holy Writ) . St. Thomas Aquinas, however, declares with a better understanding of God's ways, "If sinners pray because of some good desire coming from their human nature, then God does hear them, not as a manner of justice, because sinners do not deserve this but out of sheer mercy, and provided certain conditions are met, i.e., provided it is a prayer made for oneself, for things necessary for salvation, made piously and perseveringly."

R. Sungenis: First, Mr. Likoudis is to such a point in his desperate argumentation that he apparently sees no problem in pitting Scripture's plain words against the words of St. Thomas Aquinas.

Second, and more importantly, Mr. Likoudis fails to see that Thomas' words do not conflict either with Scripture or what I argued in my essay on Assisi.

Pay attention to this. Notice very carefully what Thomas says: "God does hear them....provided certain conditions are met, i.e., provided it is a prayer made for oneself, for things necessary for salvation, made piously and perseveringly." Thomas makes it crystal clear that the prayer must regard "things necessary for salvation." Was that done at Assisi? No, not at all. There wasn't one word about praying for salvation. For sixteen years the pope has said nothing to them about praying for their salvation. He was only concerned about "world peace." So by the very words of Thomas Aquinas, Mr. Likoudis has just condemned the pope's actions at Assisi. In my essay I made it very clear that God DOES hear the prayer of repentance for salvation, and thus I am in total agreement with Thomas Aquinas, since he said the same thing.

Perhaps in the future Mr. Likoudis can learn to read both Aquinas' writings and my writings a little more carefully before he makes his conclusions.

James Likoudis: I seriously suggest that you go to Dave Armstrong's website and read his articles on "Traditionalists-Schismatics" which constitute an excellent antidote to the "hermeneutics of suspicion" which have shaped your views on problems in the Church and the Pope's guidance of the Church as it goes into the Third Millennium. For myself, I thank God that CUF from its very beginnings has avoided the Anti-Papal Complex which has marked the schismatic St. Pius X Society and its "quasi-schismatic" sympathizers who have done so much danage to Catholic Unity.

R. Sungenis: Name calling and labeling of their opponents is not going to solve anything. Unless Mr. Likoudis deals with the facts of this issue, then he will continue to receive objections regarding Assisi, whether it be from Traditionalists or non-Traditionalists like myself. The same goes for Dave Armstrong.

James Likoudis: TCR Note: Romans 2:12-16 says that pagans also have the law written on their hearts ---a grace in itself--- "either accusing them or excusing them," according to their works, as God, who alone can judge the human heart and conscience, knows in perfect truth, justice and mercy.

R. Sungenis: I assume TCR, to whom Mr. Likoudis presented his letters, thinks that Romans 2:12-16 solves the problem of Assisi. But this again shows the myopic understanding these people have both of Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium. Romans 2:12-16 says nothing about encouraging pagans to pray to their false gods for worldly favors. No Father, no Theologian, no Council, no Pope, has ever used Romans 2:12-16 to support the idea of having pagans pray to their gods for worldly concerns. Romans 2:12-16 is for those who have never heard of Jesus Christ. Pius IX covered that issue in his encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore in 1863 in the teaching on Invincible Ignorance. Further, the epistle to the Romans goes on to tell us how we bring the pagans from merely having natural law to possessing the New Covenant in Jesus Christ. According to Romans, we are neither to encourage them to continue in their prayers to pagan gods, nor are we to send them home with the impression that they can continue to pray to these gods without incurring the wrath of God. St. Paul is very clear in the Roman epistle that once we meet pagans, we are to preach the message of Jesus Christ crucified; to tell them to repent of their sins; to tell them to forsake their idols and to be baptized; to join the Church and become part of her mission, not theirs. None of these things were done at Assisi. As it stands, Assisi is an affront to the book of Romans.

Oh, Lord, I think I'm getting that same headache again!

This subject has to be the most controversial subject with just about every one of us. I'm glad you posted the "back and forth" between Sungenis and Likoudis, there are some great points to be made on both sides of the issue.

Nothing at all controversial:

I am the Lord Thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.

The Pope was wrong, dead wrong--twice. People on this site will believe he did no wrong because they are frightened by the prospect that their pope may not be fully traditional or fully in line with past teachings. But this is a new unCatholic teaching, another in a string of novelties. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the faith and opposes every previous teaching on our relations with other religions. It has given grave scandal. I know it confirms me in my opposition to another in a series of flagrant violatons of traditional Catholicism.

and Catholics were asked to pray alongside them to the Christian God. I am not against having "contacts" with non-Christians. I have contacts with them all the time. My neighborhood is filled with non-Christians. We talk together, and sometimes even play together. But there is one thing we don't do, and that is pray together. Most of them have enough sense to know that we don't have the same deity, and they would hardly think of asking me to pray with them.

Mr. Sungenis' obsession has led him into confusion, at best, or deliberate falsification, at worst.

Note his own words: "... were asked to pray alongside them (actually, in the same structure, in different rooms)...But there is one thing we don't do, and that is pray together.

Make up your mind, Sungenis. What are you arguing against, Assisi, where folks of different faiths assembled seperately for their own prayers as actually occured OR, are you arguing against "praying together" which did NOT happen at Assisi?

Ifn'ya wanna did the Pope, at least do it based upon facts

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"

And Sungenis' obsession serves the common good?

And lying that "forcing Catholics to pray alongside of pagans" is what happened at Assisi shows "reverence" towards the Pope.

Sungenis needs a vacation. A LONG vacation

Geshe Tashi Tsering, representing Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama, delivers his speech during the Day of Prayer for Peace in the World ceremony in the square of Assisi's Lower Basilica of St. Francis, central Italy, Thursday, Jan. 24, 2002. Imams, patriarchs, monks and rabbis from around the world joined Pope John Paul II on Thursday to pray for peace in a ceremony designed to proclaim that religion must never be used to justify violence. (AP Photo/Pier

Oh,Lord,I think I'm getting that same headache again!

Ditto me.It is too bad that the latest negotiations that included a Personal Prelature,as I understand,couldn't have included a codicil----"because of the unfortunate circumstances which led to such a sad situation,and in order that it not happen again,we declare that should anyone in the curia ever seek to suppress Quo Primam(or whatever)and the Tridentine Mass,IT WILL NOT HAPPEN AGAIN EVER AND THEY WILL BE ANATHEMATIZED??!!!"

I certainly can understand the mistrust of those people since the "progressives" have wheeled,dealed,spun and twisted so many concepts and used words to make them mean what they wanted them to mean. On the other hand, the contemptuousness with which the Traditionalists treat those that place allegience on Scripture,Tradition and the Pope and his teaching Magisterium is often very off putting.

I pray daily that this issue resolve shortly or at least the one side learn how to be a little less overreactive at the mere mention of certain words.

The guy is giving a SPEECH and he is not praying!! Look at all those folks in back of him...do they look as if they are praying?? NOPE!! Most of them are probably reading a translation of the guys speech...a couple are NOT even doing that they are looking right AT him.

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.