Letter from the Devil on the Assisi gatherings

[JReducation]

PLEASE CUT AND PASTE A DIRECT QUOTE ON SALVATION—DOES HE EVER MENTION HELL OR ETERNAL PERIL??? PLEASE CUT AND PASTE A DIRECT QUOTE FROM THOSE ENCYCLICALS.

I’ve been reading your posts on this thread and the problem sounds like you seem to come from the same background that many on CAF do. You have a fundamentalist literalist attitude toward Catholicism.

This is the attitude that Catholicism has to be demand that people convert and that Catholicism has to threaten people with hell. This same attitude conveys that the only important thing the Church can show for herself are rules and written words.

This is the same set of beliefs that we find in other fundamentalist right wing religions. Catholocism is not fundamentalist and not right wing. And it certainly is not a religion of words alone.

You may disagree with the Assisi gathering if you wish. It’s not a dogma of the Church. But how much do you know about John Paul II and what he did for the world to call him a “weak weak pope”?

What do you know about the mystical man inside John Paul II and about his spiritual strength?

You disapprove because he did not push the conversion agenda. Have you ever thought or remembered that the agenda of the Catholic Church is to lead all people to discover the fullness of revelation through evagelization and by giving witness to our own faith.

The conversion ministry belongs to the fundamentalist religions of the world. It has no place in Catholocism today. This is not the way that the Church operates today. Today’s Church announces the Good News, engages in dialogue with people about their common believes and when everyone is ready, we then discuss the things that separate us.

Don’t forget this morning’s reading from Peter at mass.

“Act with gentleness and reerence toward all, so that when you are maligned those who defame you will be the onesput to shame” (1Peter 3:15-18).

We announce the Good News that “Chirst is our Hope.” We do not push conversion. Conversion is a gift of grace that comes from the Holy Spirit.

If you consider John Paul II weak, I assume that you would consider Benedict XVI weak as well. When he prayed at the Synogue in NYC he never mentioned conversion. Instead he said that the experience made him think about the number of times that Jesus must have prayed in a sacred space such as this. He proclaimed the connection between Judaism and Jesus without demanding conversion or threatening with hell.

When he prayed with the non Catholic Christians he proclaimed that Jesus was our Hope and repeated that we must put aside the issues of the past and work to correct the mistakes that have been made in hermaneutics. He didn’t call to conversion, but to discovery of Truth through reason. He admitted that there was much that we have in common that still unites us and there are some mistakes in hermaneutics that have to be addressed. His invitation was to dialogue over the things the unite us and the mistakes in interpretation of revelation.

When Benedict met at the United Nations with the different religions of the world, he left a simple message of Christian humanism. There were no threats of hell or demands for conversion.

Do you notice a pattern in the way that the Church pursues this ministry? It is slow, deliberate and full of Good News, not demands.

You cannot pull popes from the past and put them into today’s context. That does not work. They did not live in today’s situation, nor did they have access to the same ideas and theological development that the Popes of today have.

The truth does not change, but the Church’s understanding of it grows everyday. Today we understand things that have been hidden in the truth that were not understood by our anscestors.

Just as our anscestors did not understand the Hypostatic union during the first 400 years of Church history and they argued and debated until they got it right, people did not understand the scope of the term “church” when they declared that there is no salvation outside the Church, as John Paul II and Benedict XVI do.

We must understand history, mysticism, ecclesiology, social conditions, and other religions. We must be willing to learn from them as well as teach.

We do not have to be afraid of this process or fear that we are losing souls. In today’s Gospel Christ promised that he would not leave us alone. This was not a promise just to the Apostles, but to the world.

If you prayed the Liturgy of the Hours this morning you will have noticed that St. Luke said “He commissioned us to preach to the people and to bear witness that he is the one ser apart by God as judge of the living and the dead.” Our job is to preach and bear witness by our lives, not to judge either popes or non Catholics. That job belongs to Christ and only Christ can convert.

JR

 

[ProVobis]

I very much loved HH Pope John Paul II, may he rest in everlasting peace, and I look forward to the day when he will be a saint, but I think Assisi was a prudential error. The intentions behind it were good, but I think it was very problematic. Nonetheless, John Paul the Great will be remembered as one of the greatest of the Popes. May he soon be raised to the honors of the altar.

I have to agree with you here. I wonder if Pope John Paul II ever regretted Assisi or expected the criticisms he got because of it from Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

 

[terillmorris]

I’ve been reading your posts on this thread and the problem sounds like you seem to come from the same background that many on CAF do. You have a fundamentalist literalist attitude toward Catholicism.

This is the attitude that Catholicism has to be demand that people convert and that Catholicism has to threaten people with hell. This same attitude conveys that the only important thing the Church can show for herself are rules and written words.

This is the same set of beliefs that we find in other fundamentalist right wing religions. Catholocism is not fundamentalist and not right wing. And it certainly is not a religion of words alone.

You may disagree with the Assisi gathering if you wish. It’s not a dogma of the Church. But how much do you know about John Paul II and what he did for the world to call him a “weak weak pope”?

What do you know about the mystical man inside John Paul II and about his spiritual strength?

You disapprove because he did not push the conversion agenda. Have you ever thought or remembered that the agenda of the Catholic Church is to lead all people to discover the fullness of revelation through evagelization and by giving witness to our own faith.

The conversion ministry belongs to the fundamentalist religions of the world. It has no place in Catholocism today. This is not the way that the Church operates today. Today’s Church announces the Good News, engages in dialogue with people about their common believes and when everyone is ready, we then discuss the things that separate us.

Don’t forget this morning’s reading from Peter at mass.

“Act with gentleness and reerence toward all, so that when you are maligned those who defame you will be the onesput to shame” (1Peter 3:15-18).

We announce the Good News that “Chirst is our Hope.” We do not push conversion. Conversion is a gift of grace that comes from the Holy Spirit.

If you consider John Paul II weak, I assume that you would consider Benedict XVI weak as well. When he prayed at the Synogue in NYC he never mentioned conversion. Instead he said that the experience made him think about the number of times that Jesus must have prayed in a sacred space such as this. He proclaimed the connection between Judaism and Jesus without demanding conversion or threatening with hell.

When he prayed with the non Catholic Christians he proclaimed that Jesus was our Hope and repeated that we must put aside the issues of the past and work to correct the mistakes that have been made in hermaneutics. He didn’t call to conversion, but to discovery of Truth through reason. He admitted that there was much that we have in common that still unites us and there are some mistakes in hermaneutics that have to be addressed. His invitation was to dialogue over the things the unite us and the mistakes in interpretation of revelation.

When Benedict met at the United Nations with the different religions of the world, he left a simple message of Christian humanism. There were no threats of hell or demands for conversion.

Do you notice a pattern in the way that the Church pursues this ministry? It is slow, deliberate and full of Good News, not demands.

You cannot pull popes from the past and put them into today’s context. That does not work. They did not live in today’s situation, nor did they have access to the same ideas and theological development that the Popes of today have.

The truth does not change, but the Church’s understanding of it grows everyday. Today we understand things that have been hidden in the truth that were not understood by our anscestors.

Just as our anscestors did not understand the Hypostatic union during the first 400 years of Church history and they argued and debated until they got it right, people did not understand the scope of the term “church” when they declared that there is no salvation outside the Church, as John Paul II and Benedict XVI do.

We must understand history, mysticism, ecclesiology, social conditions, and other religions. We must be willing to learn from them as well as teach.

We do not have to be afraid of this process or fear that we are losing souls. In today’s Gospel Christ promised that he would not leave us alone. This was not a promise just to the Apostles, but to the world.

If you prayed the Liturgy of the Hours this morning you will have noticed that St. Luke said “He commissioned us to preach to the people and to bear witness that he is the one ser apart by God as judge of the living and the dead.” Our job is to preach and bear witness by our lives, not to judge either popes or non Catholics. That job belongs to Christ and only Christ can convert.

JR

sorry but please get a grip!!! Your assertins are leaps and bounds in logic. The bottom line is that God wants all people to become Catholic. We have lost that it seems (at least in practice). I beleive this issue is extreemely important and Assisi, in my opinion, didnt help that.

 

[Jeanette_L]

Have you read any of his encyclicals? Have you read Veritas Splendor, or Redemptoris Missio? He repeatedly told the whole world that the fulfillment of Truth is found in Jesus Christ, specifically through His Holy Catholic Church! At Assisi, the entire theme of the event was, “Peace Bears the Name of Jesus Christ.” Short of explicitly saying to them, “Convert or go to Hell,” I’d say JPII did quite a good job of telling people of the necessity of coming to Christ!

This is a good point Mickey. The hell, fire and brimstone preaching has been run into the ground by the Fundamentalists to the point that nobody listens to it anymore, it has lost it’s effectiveness, if it ever was truly effective in the long term.

The Church sees that we need a different approach in reaching people of today’s culture, people who are generally more educated, more in tune with a reasoned approach to life. This is one reason why there has been a shift in the Church’s approach, the broader culture has changed and so must our evangelization methods.

Focusing on teaching the Truth of Christ and relying on the Holy Spirit to draw all men unto Himself is the Church’s role and mission, it doesn’t need the scare tactics of yesteryear that won’t work effectively in today’s world.

 

[Mickey_Jackson]

sorry but please get a grip!!! Your assertins are leaps and bounds in logic. The bottom line is that God wants all people to become Catholic. We have lost that it seems (at least in practice). I beleive this issue is extreemely important and Assisi, in my opinion, didnt help that.

Did you read the second article I posted? What self-proclaimed Traditionalists don’t seem to understand is that true conversion takes a long time! If a person accepts the Catholic Faith because they are forced to, or out of fear of Hell, their faith is not real. But if a person is led by the example of men like John Paul II and Benedict XVI to believe that Catholicism is a good and holy religion in which is contained the most direct path to God, then they will have real faith. All of the great missionary saints - Francis of Assisi, Francis Xavier, and the Apostles themselves - understood this. You’ll notice that nowhere in the Acts of the Apostles does Peter or anyone else mention Hell when speaking to non-believers; rather, they simply proclaim that God so loved the world that He sent His only Son to die so that sins might be forgiven.

Read the article, and read the two encyclicals. And remember the point of my original post: it’s perfectly within your rights as a member of the Church to disagree with the Pope. But please don’t call him a heretic or a syncretist, because that is the furthest from what John Paul II was.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

LOL NICE TRY!!! The Assisi conference was horrible. John Paul ought not to have done it. Some of the people that were there werent even monotheistic. I mean c’mon!! Are you really going to believe that praying with these people didnt give the impression of indiiferentism to them, and the rest of the world? I cant for the life of me see how you can defend Assisi. I mean Pius X wouldnt even recieve Theodore Roosevelt when he was in Italy because he had been speaking at a Methodist church. Assisi is a huge leap. I’d take Piux X’s example over John Paul II aNY day. No disrespect to JPII. I loved him and prayed for him daily, but in my opinion, he was a weak weak Pope.

​

**Indeed !!! The Assisi abomination was exactly that - an abomination. It was a disgrace, a scandal, a sin & an horrendously bad example - there simply are no words that even begin to describe its badness. It was bad then, & it is bad now. “But the Pope did it” - that is no excuse whatever - it makes what he did far far worse, because Popes are supposed to strengthen their brethren, not confuse them by denouncing indifferentism in words, while practicing it by their acts. **

**The English Martyrs of 1535 to 1680 were Catholics - those who put them to death, were in many respects very close to them in religion. The Assisi abomination introduced the Church to the spectacle of a Pope praying with animists, Buddhists, & others: people not in any sense Christian in faith. Yet the English Martyrs chose death rather than to treat the religion of their persecutors as equivalent to Catholicism. The abomination is an insult to these Martyrs & to many others: if the Pope wanted to commit such a sin, he should have kept it to himself & not implicated other Catholics in it: to do that, is itself a further aggravation of this great wickedness. **

God forbid that that man should ever be canonised (That’s another thing he loused up… )

**And FWIW - what is the good of evangelisation if it is diluted by falsehood, such as indifferentism ? ****Emphasising any good there may be in that wicked event is no defence, any more than emphasising the excellence of the wine to which one has added cyanide would get one off a murder charge. It is what is evil that is revolting - that is why it, & not good, is found fault with. **

 

[Mickey_Jackson]

PLEASE CUT AND PASTE A DIRECT QUOTE ON SALVATION—DOES HE EVER MENTION HELL OR ETERNAL PERIL??? PLEASE CUT AND PASTE A DIRECT QUOTE FROM THOSE ENCYCLICALS.

Well, if you read his catechism, he clearly affirms the doctrine of Hell for those who die outside of God’s friendship. But your logic is problematic in two ways:

1. It is not our place to assume that anyone is in Hell or is destined for Hell. As St. Paul tells us, God alone judges the conscience of every man; if a Gentile (non-believer) acts in accordance with the law even while not knowing it, it means that the law is written upon his heart, and he can be saved. This is the Mystical Communion spoken of by Pius XII regarding those who are not card-carrying Catholics. This is why we can affirm that non-Catholics can be saved without denying the very real dogma of Extra ecclesiam nulla salus, because people who act in good faith are, in a way, members of the Church. We should spread the Truth not out of a conviction that everyone else is going to Hell, but rather because Truth, by its very nature, cannot be hidden, but must be proclaimed to the world. Christ told us to spread the Gospel to all nations; we shouldn’t have to justify a Divine command with our own notions of who is going to Hell and who is not. Let God do His job (judgement), and let us do ours (evangelization).
2. I couldn’t agree more when you say that God wants every man to become Catholic, because God made man to seek the Truth, and Truth is found in the Church established by Christ. But preaching Hellfire simply isn’t enough. Men have to be convinced using the age-old techniques of pathos (emotion) and logos (reason) that Catholicism is the True Faith. Otherwise, our evangelization efforts will be no more effective than those employed by the door-to-door Fundamentalists.

 

[terillmorris]

Well, if you read his catechism, he clearly affirms the doctrine of Hell for those who die outside of God’s friendship. But your logic is problematic in two ways:

1. It is not our place to assume that anyone is in Hell or is destined for Hell. As St. Paul tells us, God alone judges the conscience of every man; if a Gentile (non-believer) acts in accordance with the law even while not knowing it, it means that the law is written upon his heart, and he can be saved. This is the Mystical Communion spoken of by Pius XII regarding those who are not card-carrying Catholics. This is why we can affirm that non-Catholics can be saved without denying the very real dogma of Extra ecclesiam nulla salus, because people who act in good faith are, in a way, members of the Church. We should spread the Truth not out of a conviction that everyone else is going to Hell, but rather because Truth, by its very nature, cannot be hidden, but must be proclaimed to the world. Christ told us to spread the Gospel to all nations; we shouldn’t have to justify a Divine command with our own notions of who is going to Hell and who is not. Let God do His job (judgement), and let us do ours (evangelization).
2. I couldn’t agree more when you say that God wants every man to become Catholic, because God made man to seek the Truth, and Truth is found in the Church established by Christ. But preaching Hellfire simply isn’t enough. Men have to be convinced using the age-old techniques of pathos (emotion) and logos (reason) that Catholicism is the True Faith. Otherwise, our evangelization efforts will be no more effective than those employed by the door-to-door Fundamentalists.

Keep making stuff up!!! I never said any particular person is in hell. I said I didnt agree with Assisi(alot of Catholics dont by the way). I also said that Popes (including JOHN PAUL II and Benedict XVI) need to speak clearly about salvation and the need for non catholics to convert to the One True Faith. That is it!!! sorry!!!

 

[terillmorris]

Also you guys never answered my question. Do you believe Assisi was a good thing? Or do you believe it just wasnt a bad thing? big difference!!! I expect an answer!!!

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I meant to include the following in my post, since the link of the OP seemed to be aimed at “traditional” Catholics:

I do not style myself a “traditional” Catholic. I’m just a Catholic (and a wretched sinner clinging to “robes of His Mercy”). And any Catholic may question the prudential wisdom of the hierarchy, as the article said Cardinal Biffi did, for clarification if nothing else.

 

[JReducation]

​

**Indeed !!! The Assisi abomination was exactly that - an abomination. It was a disgrace, a scandal, a sin & an horrendously bad example - there simply are no words that even begin to describe its badness. It was bad then, & it is bad now. “But the Pope did it” - that is no excuse whatever - it makes what he did far far worse, because Popes are supposed to strengthen their brethren, not confuse them by denouncing indifferentism in words, while practicing it by their acts. **

**The English Martyrs of 1535 to 1680 were Catholics - those who put them to death, were in many respects very close to them in religion. The Assisi abomination introduced the Church to the spectacle of a Pope praying with animists, Buddhists, & others: people not in any sense Christian in faith. Yet the English Martyrs chose death rather than to treat the religion of their persecutors as equivalent to Catholicism. The abomination is an insult to these Martyrs & to many others: if the Pope wanted to commit such a sin, he should have kept it to himself & not implicated other Catholics in it: to do that, is itself a further aggravation of this great wickedness. **

**God forbid that that man should ever be canonised ** (That’s another thing he loused up… )

**And FWIW - what is the good of evangelisation if it is diluted by falsehood, such as indifferentism ? ****Emphasising any good there may be in that wicked event is no defence, any more than emphasising the excellence of the wine to which one has added cyanide would get one off a murder charge. It is what is evil that is revolting - that is why it, & not good, is found fault with. **

You have just given the best testimonial as to why someone should not join the Catholic Church. Congratulations.

JR

 

[Mickey_Jackson]

Indeed !!! The Assisi abomination was exactly that - an abomination. It was a disgrace, a scandal, a sin & an horrendously bad example - there simply are no words that even begin to describe its badness. It was bad then, & it is bad now. “But the Pope did it” - that is no excuse whatever - it makes what he did far far worse, because Popes are supposed to strengthen their brethren, not confuse them by denouncing indifferentism in words, while practicing it by their acts.

Thank God JPII didn’t say that to the pagans at Assisi!

Gottle, your analogy to the English martyrs has one fatal flaw: no one at Assisi was forcing Catholics to worship false gods, or to worship God in a way that they knew to be false. Nor did JPII tell even the pagans to pray to their false gods; he merely asked them to pray, which is the right and, if you’ve read Aquinas, the duty under natural law of every human being, even those who do not know how to do it properly. But with his own prayers and his own charity toward the pagans, JPII gave witness to the power and truth of the Catholic Faith.

 

[Mickey_Jackson]

I meant to include the following in my post, since the link of the OP seemed to be aimed at “traditional” Catholics:

I do not style myself a “traditional” Catholic. I’m just a Catholic (and a wretched sinner clinging to “robes of His Mercy”). And any Catholic may question the prudential wisdom of the hierarchy, as the article said Cardinal Biffi did, for clarification if nothing else.

I didn’t mean to imply that one couldn’t disagree with the Holy Father. Your position is balanced, deferential, and non-judgemental - in other words, very Catholic.

Your signature says it all!

 

[antimon]

PLEASE CUT AND PASTE A DIRECT QUOTE ON SALVATION—DOES HE EVER MENTION HELL OR ETERNAL PERIL??? PLEASE CUT AND PASTE A DIRECT QUOTE FROM THOSE ENCYCLICALS.

Those encyclicals are publicly available and you have just demonstrated that you ignore (or even refuse to read?) official papal writings. Because you attack JPII, all I needed to prove is your ignorance in this matter, I don’t need to paste anything. If anyone is really interested, they will read it. Besides, please calm down and turn off your Caps-Lock.

 

[terillmorris]

Those encyclicals are publicly available and you have just demonstrated that you ignore (or even refuse to read?) official papal writings. Because you attack JPII, all I needed to prove is your ignorance in this matter, I don’t need to paste anything. If anyone is really interested, they will read it. Besides, please calm down and turn off your Caps-Lock.

I have read them all. I am a seminary student. I dont find any of them super strong on salvation. I asked you to cut and paste a particular quote. Obviously you wont. Laughable!!!

The other laughable quote is Mickey’s when he said the theme of Assisi was “Peace bears the name of Jesus Christ” and Mickey says that is just short of " Convert or go to hell." I mean ya Mickey that is like saying the same thing. JOKE!!! Please answer my question people. Was Assisi a good thing? or just not a bad thing? Can we get an answer?

 

[Mickey_Jackson]

I have read them all. I am a seminary student. I dont find any of them super strong on salvation. I asked you to cut and paste a particular quote. Obviously you wont. Laughable!!!

The other laughable quote is Mickey’s when he said the theme of Assisi was “Peace bears the name of Jesus Christ” and Mickey says that is just short of " Convert or go to hell." I mean ya Mickey that is like saying the same thing. JOKE!!! Please answer my question people. Was Assisi a good thing? or just not a bad thing? Can we get an answer?

Please don’t put words in my mouth. I did not say that “Peace bears the name of Jesus Christ” is just short of “Convert or go to Hell”; I said that it was a very good way to evangelize! And yes, Assisi was a good thing.

 

[SemperFidelis]

And yes, Assisi was a good thing.

I’ll stick with Tradition. I don’t know how you can reconcile Assisi with the past teachings of the Magisterium on ecumenism. I’ll stick with this:
Pope Pius XI:

Is it permitted for Catholics to be present at, or to take part in, conventions, gatherings, meetings, or societies of non-Catholics which aim to associate together under a single agreement everyone who, in any way, lays claim to the name of Christian? In the negative! … It is clear, therefore, why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics. There is one way in which the unity of Christians may be fostered, and that is by furthering the return to the one true Church of Christ for those who are separated from Her.

Pope Leo XIII:

To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name. Men who really believe in the existence of God must, in order to be consistent with themselves and to avoid absurd conclusions, understand that differing modes of divine worship involving dissimilarity and conflict even on most important points cannot all be equally probable, equally good, and equally acceptable to God.

and that of great theologians:
Fr. George May:

Ecumenism destroys the Catholic faith. Ecumenism deals a deadly blow to the Catholic priesthood. Ecumenism drains the marrow from the bones of believers. There is a clear sense that, as a consequence of ecumenism, the Church has become Protestant. Ecumenism is a sickness, and furthermore a mortal sickness, the cancer of the Church, the metastasis of which has reached virtually all its members. The Church may die of ecumenism; she cannot live with it. It must be put done away with as soon as possible and in the most radical possible way.

 

[terillmorris]

Please don’t put words in my mouth. I did not say that “Peace bears the name of Jesus Christ” is just short of “Convert or go to Hell”; I said that it was a very good way to evangelize! And yes, Assisi was a good thing.

here is your quote Mickey “Have you read any of his encyclicals? Have you read Veritas Splendor, or Redemptoris Missio? He repeatedly told the whole world that the fulfillment of Truth is found in Jesus Christ, specifically through His Holy Catholic Church! At Assisi, the entire theme of the event was, “Peace Bears the Name of Jesus Christ.” Short of explicitly saying to them, “Convert or go to Hell,” I’d say JPII did quite a good job of telling people of the necessity of coming to Christ!”

I think you just contradicted yourself Mickey. Try to keep your facts straight!!!

---

 

[anamchara]

Ecumenism is not about condemnation, it is about conversion. Conversions take time and grace. There is not such thing as conversion by the sword.

 

[Mickey_Jackson]

here is your quote Mickey “Have you read any of his encyclicals? Have you read Veritas Splendor, or Redemptoris Missio? He repeatedly told the whole world that the fulfillment of Truth is found in Jesus Christ, specifically through His Holy Catholic Church! At Assisi, the entire theme of the event was, “Peace Bears the Name of Jesus Christ.” Short of explicitly saying to them, “Convert or go to Hell,” I’d say JPII did quite a good job of telling people of the necessity of coming to Christ!”

I think you just contradicted yourself Mickey. Try to keep your facts straight!!!

---

I said it was a different, and in many cases a better way to evangelize. I’ll get you those three quotes soon; I’m at school right now.