Letter from the Devil on the Assisi gatherings

[Balance]

What did I say that was offensive? I love women especially ones who know their place. Big deal!!! I never defined what “that place” is/was. My other statments are true and are good Catholic teaching. I dont agree with the Pope praying with pagans, kissing the Koran, allowing communion in the hand, letting heretical Bishops stay in place etc…what am i guilty of?

terrillmorris: Basically, you’re guilty of presenting yourself in a way that many find offensive. If you are not actually like that, you need to know that that is how you come across, and you might like to think about what you post here and the way you post it.

You might like to read biographies of and/or the writings of great saints and blesseds like Therese of Lisieux, John of the Cross, Maximillian Kolbe, John Henry Newman, Pope John XXIII; of people like Mother Teresa, Cardinal Nguyen van Thuan, Mary MacKillop and Pope Benedict XIV (to mention just a few) and see how they went about (or go about) the great task of telling people about Christ. Think about their gentleness, humility, charity and true sense of humour.

Here’s the thing: People are disarmed by Christians who are courteous, gentle, reasoned and kind. People who don’t know Christ or his Church are *intrigued * by Christians like that - I’ve seen it time and time again. They want to know more: they want to hear more about this Christ who makes such a difference in the life of their friend, classmate or workmate. Christians who are aggressive, loud or supercilious have, on the other hand, the opposite effect - *they are the caricature *that is all too easy to immediately dismiss, mock and ignore. Few people want to get to know them; hardly anyone wants to hear what they have to say.

“Our time has need of men and women who, like rays of light, are able to communicate the fascination of the Gospel and the beauty of the new life in the Spirit.” - John Paul II

Let’s pray that we all become **more able to communicate **this “terrifyingly beautiful” Good News to the people around us.

 

[antimon]

DustinsDad: what are you trying to prove? The fact is that Protestant can get to heaven without even being formally Catholic, provided invincible ignorance (and your quotes nowhere say otherwise) and when we point to this fact, without ever saying that we shouldn’t preach and defend the Catholic faith or that religion doesn’t matter, you are very quick to accuse us of liberalism, modernism, etc… even mock us by caricatures. Why?

Let me ask you, do you think that we promote religious indifferentism? How? By saying that being Protestant does not equal being damned? Your defense is very harsh, and not justified. No one here is saying that because Protestants (or even non-believers) can get to heaven we shouldn’t preach true faith, yet you seem to fight this. Is knocking down straw men and mocking opponents all you can do?

Do you think being non-catholic equals being damned?

 

[Graing]

It’s simple common sense folks -

• The article in the original post actually did some condemning of its own - in a subtle and slick way, it condemned the One True Church, as if it was on the Devil’s side up until, oh, about 30-40 years ago.
• The Vicar of Christ shouldn’t *invite *folks to break the First Commandment.
• The Devil likes it when humans pray to false gods.
• When the Vicar of Christ - even if with the best of intentions - invites humans to pray to false gods, the Devil likes it even more. Scandal is a one of his favorite weapons.
• There are folks here have never read the older Encyclicals. They refuse. They have a “that was then this is now” mentality. The past doesn’t matter one whit. They’ve been taught and educated by modernists. Pray for them.
• The folks who haven’t read the older Encyclicals will usually never admit that they haven’t read the older Encyclicals.
  Further, there is a reason for alot of this nonsense is coming to the tradtional catholic sub-forum. There’s a sense of panic among the liberal minded folks. People are starting to wake up to the crisis and to the emptyness of the esoteric platitude laden novelties that “liberal catholicism” preaches. If they didn’t feel the “threat” of tradition growing within the Church, they wouldn’t be spending so much time in here belittling tradition and traditional concerns.

It’s actually a good thing. Frustrating, but a good sign nonetheless.

DustinsDad

Dustin’s Dad,

Again you write a great post. Thank you. I find it fascinating that some people here will totally ignore a great post like yours and continue to focus on what they perceive as weaker arguments. Shame on those people for shrinking away from enlightening posts like yours to continue to savage someone else because they see easier sport in it. I suppose it’s much easier to ignore a logical and well thought out argument that opposes your view and continue emotional exchanges with an easier target? I’d much rather see an elevated dialogue that has the possibility to yield clarity and resolution. You are doing your part and I thank you.

 

[Graing]

DustinsDad: what are you trying to prove? The fact is that Protestant can get to heaven without even being formally Catholic, provided invincible ignorance (and your quotes nowhere say otherwise) and when we point to this fact, without ever saying that we shouldn’t preach and defend the Catholic faith or that religion doesn’t matter, you are very quick to accuse us of liberalism, modernism, etc… even mock us by caricatures. Why?

I suppose it depends on how you think of invincible ignorance. Do you think it is possible, in this time of instant and widely available information, for so many to be invincibly ignorant? I suppose it depends on how much responsibility you place on the individual. Do you think everyone needs to be spoonfed the catechism - and if they are not, or are not willing to listen, they are invincibly ignorant? Taking away the responsibility of the individual to think and learn and come to difficult decisions is probably what gets some people “accused” of liberalism or modernism.

Let me ask you, do you think that we promote religious indifferentism? How? By saying that being Protestant does not equal being damned? Your defense is very harsh, and not justified. No one here is saying that because Protestants (or even non-believers) can get to heaven we shouldn’t preach true faith, yet you seem to fight this.

I think that many would disagree that it is so easy and common for protestants or muslims or non-believers (or some Catholics even) to get to heaven. Do you not think that the gate is narrow?

Is knocking down straw men and mocking opponents all you can do?

Do you think being non-catholic equals being damned?

I think maybe you are taking things personally and I don’t recall him attacking you directly. I didn’t really see any mocking.

As far as non-Catholic being damned? No one can know the state of one’s soul - Catholic or non-Catholic. I would imagine that if someone knows about the Church, her origin and what she teaches and still refuses to follow her teachings, it would be a tough row to hoe to get through the gate.

 

[DustinsDad]

DustinsDad: what are you trying to prove?

Well, for one thing, as demonstrated by your post here, that no one who attacks tradition will actually respond to specifics - only responding with a general plea for some impossible “unity” apart from the unity in and of the One True Church.

Your intentions may be good - but your good intentions, your emotion, have trumped reason.
3. But some are more easily deceived by the outward appearance of good when there is question of fostering unity among all Christians.

1. …This undertaking is so actively promoted as in many places to win for itself the adhesion of a number of citizens, and it even takes possession of the minds of very many Catholics and allures them with the hope of bringing about such a union as would be agreeable to the desires of Holy Mother Church, who has indeed nothing more at heart than to recall her erring sons and to lead them back to her bosom. But in reality beneath these enticing words and blandishments lies hid a most grave error, by which the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed.
   (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos)

The fact is that Protestant can get to heaven without even being formally Catholic, provided invincible ignorance (and your quotes nowhere say otherwise) and when we point to this fact, without ever saying that we shouldn’t preach and defend the Catholic faith or that religion doesn’t matter, you are very quick to accuse us of liberalism, modernism, etc… even mock us by caricatures. Why?

Because of numerous reasons. For just one - Invincible/inculpable ignorance is something that we should never “assume” as a justifying reason *not *to call a non-catholic to the necessasary conversion to Christ in His Church. It is merely one of a couple of factors that must be present for a non-catholic to be saved if they die outside of visible unity. It’s something that only God can possibly know because only He knows what graces have been accepted or rejected in the individual’s life. In and of itself, even if we could see it, invincible ignorance neither saves nor condemns, and we much preach the call to conversion nonetheless. Our preaching of the Gospel, our call to conversion IS an actual grace on the person - faith comes by hearing says the Bible and the Church for 2000 years! Our silence in this matter is scandalous - and we then become responsible for their ignorance rather than seeking to help them overcome this terrible and unfortunate situation.

The meaning of life, the purpose for our existance is to know, love and serve God in this life so that we can be happy with him forever in the next. Therefore, our failing to preach the call to conversion, our failure to let these folks KNOW that they must convert to Christ for the salvation of their eternal souls, because of an assumption of ignorance and a desire “not to offend man” is actually a standing directly in the way of the non-Catholics very purpose for existance.

Let me ask you, do you think that we promote religious indifferentism? How?

In alot of ways. One statement on this board demonstrates this perhaps better than any I’ve seen in quite some time:
JR: “If Christ has used the Reformation churches as a means of salvation, then one is not in danger of going to hell because one is Protestant, but because one is a bad Protestant.”
This is the epitomy of religious indifferentism, a direct contradiction to the work of the Holy Spirit in the One Holy Catholic Church.

***Of course the Protestant is in danger of going to hell because of their protestantism!!! ***Even if (and that’s a big “if”) they are not culpable for their ignorance/rejection of Christ’s Church, they are ipso-facto by their Protestantism

• cut off from the Sacrament of Confession - the means by which Our Lord gave us to forgive us for post-baptismal sins,
• the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the graces that flow from that Once for all Sacrafice on the Altar
• and Holy Communion - from the very reception of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ
• the last Rites - such a gift of grace God can grant to us in His Church that helps us make that final step from time to eternity
• and a multitude of other gifts and spiritual weapons (the sacramentals, the little “t” traditions, etc.) Our Lord gives to His Holy Catholic Church presicely so that us weak and stumbling creatures can get to Heaven and be with Him forever - the “full armor of God” so to speak is found ONLY in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
  (continued…)

 

[DustinsDad]

Your defense is very harsh, and not justified.

Souls are at stake. Reasoned arguments and discussion is ignored. Therefore, a more direct and “harsh” approach becomes necessary. As Pope Saint Pius X wrote:

1. One of the primary obligations assigned by Christ to the office divinely committed to Us of feeding the Lord’s flock is that of guarding with the greatest vigilance the deposit of the faith delivered to the saints, rejecting the profane novelties of words and the gainsaying of knowledge falsely so called. There has never been a time when this watchfulness of the supreme pastor was not necessary to the Catholic body, for owing to the efforts of the enemy of the human race, there have never been lacking “men speaking perverse things,” “vain talkers and seducers,” “erring and driving into error.” It must, however, be confessed that these latter days have witnessed a notable increase in the number of the enemies of the Cross of Christ, who, by arts entirely new and full of deceit, are striving to destroy the vital energy of the Church, and, as far as in them lies, utterly to subvert the very Kingdom of Christ. Wherefore We may no longer keep silence, lest We should seem to fail in Our most sacred duty**, and lest the kindness that, in the hope of wiser counsels, We have hitherto shown them, should be set down to lack of diligence in the discharge of Our office**.
2. That We should act without delay in this matter is made imperative especially by the fact that the partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church’s open enemies; but, what is to be most dreaded and deplored, in her very bosom, and are the more mischievous the less they keep in the open. We allude, Venerable Brethren, to many who belong to the Catholic laity, and, what is much more sad, to the ranks of the priesthood itself, who, animated by a false zeal for the Church, lacking the solid safeguards of philosophy and theology, nay more, thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church, and lost to all sense of modesty, put themselves forward as reformers of the Church; and, forming more boldly into line of attack, assail all that is most sacred in the work of Christ, not sparing even the Person of the Divine Redeemer, whom, with sacrilegious audacity, they degrade to the condition of a simple and ordinary man.
   Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis

No one here is saying that because Protestants (or even non-believers) can get to heaven we shouldn’t preach true faith, yet you seem to fight this.

I do believe this is what is being “said” here. The true faith is that one must convert to Christ and His Church to be saved…that is the objective truth defined infallibly by the One True Church and taught for 2000+ years now. Sometimes more clearly than others.

And it is exactly this preaching that makes you upset for some strange reason. Why?

Do you think being non-catholic equals being damned?

On the objective level - normatively speaking - yes.

Individually and subjectively, given certain criteria that we can’t see on this side of heaven, it’s possible for individuals to be united to the soul of the Church, but these things, these criteria that make for the theoretical possibility are not discussed - certainly not to the Protestants themselves!!! Shudder the thought!!!

But, again, since we can’t see these things, we err on the side of caution. Like St. Paul, we don’t assume our hearers will be given an excuse for their ignorance - especially *after *hearing the Gospel message. In fact, the mere fact that a non-Catholic is in the midst of the Catholic Church and able to hear Her indicates pretty strongly that, as Scripture says, the time of ignorance is now over for them…
Acts 17:30-32
And God indeed having winked at the times of this ignorance, now declareth unto men, that all should every where do penance. Because he hath appointed a day wherein he will judge the world in equity, by the man whom he hath appointed; giving faith to all, by raising him up from the dead. And when they had heard of the resurrection of the dead, some indeed mocked, but others said: We will hear thee again concerning this matter.
Therefore, with all charity, we preach the necessary call to conversion and don’t tell lies and half truths to folks so that we make them feel beter in there perilous situation ourside the visible bonds of Holy Mother Church. No matter how much they applaud us for our non-judgemental and innoffenisve “enlightenment”.

DD

 

[antimon]

I suppose it depends on how you think of invincible ignorance. Do you think it is possible, in this time of instant and widely available information, for so many to be invincibly ignorant? I suppose it depends on how much responsibility you place on the individual. Do you think everyone needs to be spoonfed the catechism - and if they are not, or are not willing to listen, they are invincibly ignorant? Taking away the responsibility of the individual to think and learn and come to difficult decisions is probably what gets some people “accused” of liberalism or modernism.

You’d be surprised, but there are masses of people who are born protestant, raised protestant and live in a protestant environment (family, friends, church, etc…). Yes, they know that some Catholic Church exists, but how should they know it is the one true Church? Why even should they care (from their perspective)? It is our responsibility to preach and defend the Catholic faith to them, so they have a chance to really know and understand our faith.

I think that many would disagree that it is so easy and common for protestants or muslims or non-believers (or some Catholics even) to get to heaven. Do you not think that the gate is narrow?

Some would argue that it is more difficult for Catholics, because we have the full truth and all the means of salvation and therefore God asks more from us. But take that as my speculation only, please.

I dare to say that if a non-Christians don’t know God but obey the natural law, they will enter the kingdom of God. I know that this is not the ordinary way of salvation, but it is real.The question would follow, how many non-Christians do this? As for Protestants, they have many elements of justification and salvation, and again, it is up to us to bring them the full truth .

As far as non-Catholic being damned? No one can know the state of one’s soul - Catholic or non-Catholic. I would imagine that if someone knows about the Church, her origin and what she teaches and still refuses to follow her teachings, it would be a tough row to hoe to get through the gate.

And who here says otherwise? We are not talking about those who reject the Church with full knowledge and consent. On the other hand, I can’t really imagine why would anyone with full knowledge and understanding of the Church reject her. But that is hardly the case for the majority of Protestants.

 

[antimon]

DustinsDad: what is making me upset are not your arguments, but your tone and accusations. I am not attacking tradition, I am upset because I somehow got labelled “liberal”, “modernist” (hmm, why not heretic?) etc… for believing that Protestants can be saved and are saved, if their protestantism is not their fault (and if they follow whatever means of salvations they have). I would understand those labels if I had said that since they could be saved too it was ok to be Protestant and we should leave them alone, or if I said “oh, those quotes are stupid and not relevant any more”. But have I said that?

A bit off-topic, but how do YOU try to show Protestants the true faith? I am sure you can quote many documents saying that being Protestant is not very good, but how do you try to bring them to the full truth? By being equally hostile to them?

 

[SemperFidelis]

But how does it apply to non-Christians? How can they return to something they never left?

Well if Pope Pius XI is condemning prayer gatherings with protestants, you can be sure that it goes double for doing so with non-Christians. No pope has done anything remotely close to what John Paul II has done in the 2000 year history of the Church.

But my question is: did JPII recognize other “religions” as valid or equal at Assisi by inviting them to pray with him?

That is exactly the scandalous idea that was implanted in most people’s minds by John Paul’s actions–Catholic or not. Just look at the outroar among Catholics to the recent clarification by the CDF. “How can the Pope speak of the Catholic Church as the One, True, Church?–that’s outdated, been reversed, no longer applies in the age of modern man, doesn’t reconcile with Pope John Paul II’s actions (like at Assisi), etc.” Pope John Paul II fostered an indifferent attitude among everyone, including Catholics by his actions at Assisi whether he intended to do so or not. Allowing animists to use a Church to pray to “gods” that don’t exist, let alone “gods” that can actually hear them and answer their “prayers” is absurd, and unprecented in the 2000 year history of the Church. Without a doubt, it fosters an indifferent attitude amongst Catholics towards other religions. The outroar that occurred over the recent CDF clarification is proof that indifferentism has spread during the reign of John Paul. I don’t know how people can clamor for the canonization of a Pope, whose reign was filled with so many scandals–sex abuse scandals; rampant false ecumenism and ecumenical prayer gatherings that fosters the breaking of the First Commandment; mass amounts of Catholics leaving the Church while most of those who remain, remain in name only as they don’t even go to Mass or Confession regularly; such widespread confusion amongst the Faithful that has at its root the indifferentism that the Pope’s actions have fostered; the appointing of Bishops and Cardinals who wouldn’t even qualify to hold the name of Catholic in any other time–save post-Vatican II–let alone hold the position of Bishop or Cardinal. Pope John Paul II must meet the requirements for canonization met by the Saintly Popes of the past. There are objective standards, and when compared to the Popes that have been canonized to this point, I don’t know how one could push for his canonization knowing the above, especially after comparing him to the Saintly Popes of the past. I’m sure this post will cause a huge uproar amongst the neo-con folks, but the truth hurts sometimes I guess.

 

[JReducation]

I have a serious problem with much of what you’re saying regarding John Paul II. The man was a man of prayer, known for his deep holiness, his mysticism and his love for Christ, the Blessed Mother and the Church. His entire life was dedicated to the ministry of the Church and service to God’s people. He opposed evil in all of its forms. He protected the Church from being attacked and abused by Communism and Materialism. When he died, it was found that he owned nothing, which as a secular priest was not necessary for him. Because he did not live a vowed life, he was not a religious. He saved many of my people from certain death when he was a young seminarian and priest in Poland, where Jews were persecuted as much as in Germany.

My other problem with what your saying about John Paul is that your words are inconsistent with what brought me to the Catholic Church. I was born an Orthodox Jew. My family lived in a small town where Jews were not welcome. There were two dominant groups: Lutherans and Catholics. My parents sent us to the local Catholic school, because we would be treated better than at the local public school where most teachers and students were anti-Semitic Protestants.

Our local school ran from k-12 and was under the direction of the Capuchin-Franciscan Brothers (Friars). The Brothers loved us very much. We were the only Jewish kids in the school. Yet the friars made it a point to teach the other children why we wore a kippa (yarmulke) with our uniform. They allowed us to teach the other kids how to pray the psalms in Hebrew.

The friars knew that we couldn’t go out and play with the other kids on Saturdays. My brothers and I enjoyed sports. The brothers made it possible for us to join the team. They tried as much as they could to have games on weekdays. When I was struggling with math, one of the brothers stayed behind with me for three weeks and tutored me until I got an A in math.

Their kindness, their asceticism, their life of prayer, their love for each other and their intimate community life were an inspiration that caused me to ask questions. The first book they gave me to read was a biography on St. Francis of Assisi. After reading it, I understood the true meaning of love and total devotion to God. But they did not push me to be a Catholic. They lived their Catholic faith and ran their Catholic school with the spirit of St. Francis. They loved God. They stopped everything in the middle of the day to pray, while we sat through classes with lay teachers. They disappeared in the evenings to pray the Office, eat as a community, and recreate with each other. These were priorities for them, even over the school. When we arrived early in the morning, they were coming out of mass and they seemed joyful and full of life.

I was so attracted by their charity, especially toward the non-Catholic kids in the school, that when it came time to go to college I wanted to be in school with them. They pointed me to Catholic University of America where they had a friary and where they taught. While at the university I met the Benedictines who also taught there. From them I learned about Christian hospitality and mystical prayer. I would often go to the chapel and sit in the back and watch the Monks pray the Divine Office or I would visit the friary on campus and visit my beloved Brothers, where I asked more questions about St. Francis.

Finally, at age 20 I wanted to be like Francis. I entered the Catholic Church. I realized that being like Francis meant being like Christ. It meant embracing every man and woman as sons and daughters of the same Father. Through the Brothers I went on to finish my undergraduate degree. I wanted to get study their mysticism. I remained at the university and completed an MA in Mystical Theology. But this triggered questions about reason. I needed to know how rational was this mystical life which was wrapped around the sacraments, prayer and augmented works of charity. I went back to my beloved friars who encouraged me to study Philosophy of Theology.

I didn’t have the money, but the Brothers offered me the opportunity to live in their friary in Salamanca, for free. I took the little money I had and headed for Salamanca to work on a Doctorate of Philosophy of Theology. While I was there I saw more charity, deeper prayer, greater acts of love, deeper community life, and perfect obedience to the Church and the will of God, even when it was difficult to obey. Like their Holy Father Francis, they had great love and respect for the Holy Father. At the time, the reigning Pope was John Paul II. Even when the friars disagreed with the Holy Father, they obeyed and they followed Francis’ rule, never to question the Vicar of Christ, unless you were ordered to commit a sin.

I found that sins are not the fault of the Church or the Holy Father, but a choice that individuals make. There is no finger pointing in matters of sin. All of the sins that you mention in your post are personal choices. Had it not been for the good example, the example of love, the example of obedience and the example of prayer and the friars constant struggle to be holy, I would never have been a Catholic.

JR

 

[SemperFidelis]

He protected the Church from being attacked and abused by Communism and Materialism.

Yes but he didn’t protect the Church when it was being attacked by modernism, liberalism, religious indifferentism, false ecumenism, and false notions of religious liberty and collegiality, etc. In fact he helped many of these things spread through the Church by his own actions and his non-condemnatory approach to such heresies (reading my sig line would be good here). I understand you have an emotional affection for a very loving and caring Pope, but when all is said and done, his Pontificate must be compared to the great Popes of the past. I don’t know how anyone remotely unbiased could objectively think he should be canonized after making such an assessment. I realize this is unpopular, but I won’t apologize for stating what needs to be said.

The first book they gave me to read was a biography on St. Francis of Assisi. After reading it, I understood the true meaning of love and total devotion to God.

I find it interesting you bring up St. Francis of Assisi. I’m willing to bet St. Francis would have vomited if he was there in 1986 or 2002 for the Assisi Peace Gatherings and he then probably would have condemned the Pope’s actions on the spot. I suggest reading the following:

tanbooks.com/index.php/page/shop:flypage/product_id/723/keywords/francis/

or this if you would like a free online summary:

cfnews.org/Assisi.htm

 

[Mickey_Jackson]

Yes but he didn’t protect the Church when it was being attacked by modernism, liberalism, religious indifferentism, false ecumenism, and false notions of religious liberty and collegiality, etc. In fact he helped many of these things spread through the Church by his own actions and his non-condemnatory approach to such heresies (reading my sig line would be good here). I understand you have an emotional affection for a very loving and caring Pope, but when all is said and done, his Pontificate must be compared to the great Popes of the past. I don’t know how anyone remotely unbiased could objectively think he should be canonized after making such an assessment. I realize this is unpopular, but I won’t apologize for stating what needs to be said.

I find it interesting you bring up St. Francis of Assisi. I’m willing to bet St. Francis would have vomited if he was there in 1986 or 2002 for the Assisi Peace Gatherings and he then probably would have condemned the Pope’s actions on the spot. I suggest reading the following:

tanbooks.com/index.php/page/shop:flypage/product_id/723/keywords/francis/

or this if you would like a free online summary:

cfnews.org/Assisi.htm

I think you miss the point of JR’s post. I asked him to tell his conversion story to demonstrate to people on this forum that, contrary to your preconceived notions, charity, kindness, understanding, and most of all patience do lead to conversions. This is what JPII was trying to accomplish at Assisi.

Consider these words from apologist Mark Shea’s dialogue with a “Traditionalist” critic of the Assisi meetings:

I’m having trouble figuring out what, exactly, the problem is with the whole Assisi thing.

Pope calls together a bunch of religions to agree on the need for peace. Blessed are the peacemakers, etc. I’m tracking with that.

Pope says no we’re not praying together, everybody go to your own corner and pray according to the dictates of your conscience. But let’s work together as we can to keep the world from going up in flames. Lumen Gentium and Unitatis Redintegratio teach this. Okay. I’m still tracking.

I’m not seeing an affirmation that “We’re all really saying the same thing.” Far from it, I see the same clear statement of Dominus Iesus and Lumen Gentium that in the Catholic faith alone the fullness of God’s revelation subsists. Same deal on the distinction between the baptized and unbaptized. I’m still tracking.

About half the people on the list are really, really angry about all this. I’m not tracking. I haven’t the time to read the whole thread. Could somebody summarize for me what the problem is? How is telling somebody at an interreligious gathering "Work with us where you can and go off and pray according to your conscience (though the Catholic revelation is the fullness of the Truth) a craven capitulation to indifferentism, but telling somebody in your city they can have a mosque or a temple or a Lutheran Church or whatever a common sense acknowledgement of human conscience and freedom? It seems to me it’s all one or all the other. If it’s a wonderful testament to the Church’s anthropology that pagans are free to be pagans in a Catholic country, why is it a damning rebuke of the Church’s leaders that they apply exactly the same principle in a Catholic meeting? I don’t get it.

 

[Mickey_Jackson]

The Mark Shea article, continued:

It seems to me that once the Church affirms the principle of religious liberty (as it should), it’s perfectly possible to hold a meeting like Assisi which, in essence, affirms what can be affirmed in common (like “Nuclear annihilation would be bad. Terrorists should really not blow up innocent people.”) and then tells the various participants “Go obey your conscience according to your religious tradition, just understand that we don’t affirm the truth of that tradition when it contradicts ours because our Tradition is the fullness of what God himself has revealed.” It appears to me that this is precisely what’s going on at Assisi. So I’m having trouble figuring out the problem. Do the critics of Assisi also think that Lumen Gentium and Unitatis Redintegratio were bad things?

Can somebody explain to me what I’m missing?

Between the sneers and John Lennon references, the slams of the Orthodox and the slams of those wretched Novus Ordo types, I could not actually find anything going on at Assisi which was, in fact, contrary to the Tradition or the teaching of Lumen Gentium and Unitatis
Redintegratio. So I reiterate my question: Does this boil down to a rejection of the Church’s teaching on religious liberty? Or am I missing something? And if the Church’s teaching on religious liberty is wrong, what do critics of Assisi propose to put in its place? How should it be implemented on the ground? How far do you take the logic of a rejection of religious liberty? Vatican II urges common prayer where possible.

During the 40s, of course, Jews were housed in Catholic facilities, including the Vatican. They were permitted to pray there. Was this also a shocking betrayal of the uniqueness of the faith and a capitulation to indifferentism? If not, why not? If Jews can pray on Church property without it meaning “we’re really saying the same thing” why can’t the delegates to Assisi? - especially after the Pope explicitly says repeatedly, “We’re not praying together and we’re not really saying the same thing?” What’s so magical about being on Church property after a disclaimer like that?

I’m still having trouble figuring out the actual problem.

One gets the impression that Ferrara, in some fever dream of canon law, has detected something unlawful. But it’s hard to tell since Ferrara piece was, in essence, a protracted sneer, written in the tone of one for whom Assisi was so self-evidently wrong that he never seemed to me to have gotten round to telling me why it was wrong. It reminded me of the tone of some anti-Catholic polemicists (as arch-Traditionalists often do) who seem to think that merely mentioning that a Designated Bad Guy says something proves that it is false. For myself, I found that when all the sneers had been waded through, I couldn’t yet detect what was actually wrong with Assisi other than that it reminded Ferrara of the 60s or something.

 

[Mickey_Jackson]

Continued:

I understood the meeting to be a meeting aiming, not toward affirming the interchangeableness of all religions, but toward the specific goal of civil peace in a world threatened by war and violence on an unprecedented scale. The meeting seems to me to affirm what can be affirmed in common among religions (i.e. Mass murder is bad. Civil peace is good). It did not in the slightest give anybody license to suppose the Church was relinquishing the claims to uniqueness it affirmed and continues to affirm in Dominus Iesus. So what’s the problem? “People might misunderstand” So what? They misunderstood Jesus in John 6 too. Is that a reason for avoiding speaking a complex and subtle truth?

And, of course, there is quite literally no voice anywhere on the world stage or at any time in human history that has borne witness to Jesus Christ to more people than that of John Paul II. Quite literally no one has spoken of Jesus Christ and the truth of the Christian faith to more people than he has. Ever. It is quite amazing to me that all that is suddenly forgotten because of Assisi, even though John Paul makes it crystal clear that only in Christ is peace and the fullness of truth found and that other religions are not affirmed as being just as true as Catholic Faith./**
The Pope, of all people, is almost uniquely aware of the difference between utopianism and Christian faith (he’s lived under two utopian systems). He’s written extensively on the impossibility of utopian schemes. The Catechism he promulgates specifically warns (#676): “The Antichrist’s deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgement. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism,[Cf. DS 3839.] especially the ‘intrinsically perverse’ political form of a secular messianism. [Pius XI, Divini
Redemptoris, condemning the ‘false mysticism’ of this ‘counterfeit of the redemption of the lowly’; cf. GS 20-21.]”

So I think it extremely unlikely that he now imagines that the goal is a secular utopia of religious leaders singing Kumbaya. Rather, I think it obvious he is acting on the sensible counsel of Lumen Gentium to work in common with people of good will for what can be achieved while, of
course, not sacrificing the truth that the Church’s revelation is - alone - the fullness of God’s revelation.

Ignorant people can sure think stupid things. They did the same thing when Jesus said we had to eat his Body and Blood. So what? There will never be a shortage of people who think Jesus said “Blessed are the cheesemakers”. The question is not “What will clueless people think?” The question is, “Is this what the Church is really saying?” It is obvious to me that the Church has changed not a jot of its teaching but is simply implementing that teaching, affirming what can be affirmed (“a peaceful civil society is good and all men of good will should say so”), continuing to deny what must be denied (“Catholic faith is interchangeable with any other religious tradition”) and making that clear by, among other things, refusing to pray in common with non-Christians.

 

[Mickey_Jackson]

How does all this advance the cause of Christ in the world? Oh, much the same way, the Pope’s labors for peace during the depths of World Wars I and II might. I remain baffled at how a Christian can see the struggle to keep millions og people from being incinerated, poisoned or plagued as, first and foremost, something sinister while working extra hard to not hear the obvious and clear calls that this struggle not be taken as an affirmation of indifferentism.

The Pope’s action here seems to me to be a no-brainer: work with people of good will to stop millions from getting killed. Make clear that this common effort does not mean all religions are the same and that our faith is not the full revelation of God. This he has done. I still am stunned that somebody would have a cow about this. Maybe people will think differently after nukes in suitcases go off in New York, Paris, and London. I dunno.

Or, more likely, 50 years from now somebody will be complaining that John Paul II was “bin Laden’s Pope” for failing to advocate the extermination of the Islamic world.

There was no prayer with heretics, much less pagans. There was, it appears, prayer with other Christians and no common prayer with non-Christians, as far as I could see.

Christians raised in other traditions are not, by the Church’s lights, “heretics” (see Unitatis Redintegratio).

“Religious involvement” with pagans is a rather fuzzy term that elides my point: how do you apply religious liberty on the ground? The Church specifically refused common prayer. What else should it do?

Ferrara is . . . the guy who was at bat for Gerry Matatics during his odd sojourn among the Traditionalist dissenting folks. His tone and attitude certainly are what I’ve encountered in that uniformly unpleasant and unhappy sector of Catholicism. He has the quality of those
sectarians who are all in on the code and who all snort in union when you say the wrong word (“Heh! John Paul II!” is the common snort among those guys, sort of like “Heh! Evidentialist!” is a common snort in another sector of Christianity or “Heh! Protestant!” in the Fortress Catholicism wing). Once you’ve uttered a Disapproved Word, you’re a marked man, one of Them. Conversation among such folks has (as Ferrara’s piece has) the tendency to proceed as though the thing to be proven was proven merely by mentioning that a Disapproved Person was for/against it. John Paul II convened Assisi, ergo it’s stupid (guffaw, wink, snort). And if you ask, “But what, Mr. Ferrara, was wrong with the meeting?” you get the sense that the answer is a nudge in the ribs of his fellow Angry Trads, a whispered “Get a load of him!” and your name marked down as another in the cohort of Them who Ain’t Us.

I remain baffled about what, in the content of Ferrara’s protracted sneer, actually shows the Church was doing something wrong, contrary to the Tradition, or unbiblical. So far, the closest I’ve seen a real argument is “Ignorant people might misunderstand John Paul II’s action.” That’s pretty lame as an actual criticism.

 

[DustinsDad]

DustinsDad: what is making me upset are not your arguments, but your tone and accusations.

I can’t address “tone” - I guess “tone” is in the ear of the receiver. When you read (and I highly encourage you to do so) Pascendi Dominici Gregis by Pope Saint Pius X, or Mortalium Animos by Pope Pius XI, what “tone” do you think they are using? Does it upset you?

And if you think I’m making accusations, then those would be contained within the arguments, with which you say are not making you upset. That’s a little confusing .

I am not attacking tradition,

Seems otherwise to me. But I doubt you know it. Yet.

I am upset because I somehow got labelled “liberal”, “modernist” (hmm, why not heretic?) etc… for believing that Protestants can be saved and are saved, if their protestantism is not their fault (and if they follow whatever means of salvations they have).

Again, invincible ignorance neither saves nor condemns. It’s just one of those things that we can’t see but that must be present *if *a non-visible member of the Catholic Church is have even the possibility to be saved. Read the article in the above link.

But the real issue is, when exactly, in your mind, is a person’s protestantism not “their fault”? And is your understanding here in conformity to the infallible dogmas of the Church?

I would understand those labels if I had said that since they could be saved too it was ok to be Protestant and we should leave them alone,

You are saying its ok to be Protestant “as long as it’s not their fault” - which could mean just about anything anyone wants it to mean. You are going to hve to be a little more specific, lest you promote religious indifferentism. You speak as if these particular protestants, whoever they are, have no responsibility to seek out and to respond to the Truth. But they do - all of us do - no matter what situation we were born into.

The thing (I think) that sparked this chat between you and me was your defending this “classic” JR statement:
If Christ has used the Reformation churches as a means of salvation, then one is not in danger of going to hell because one is Protestant, but because one is a bad Protestant."
And you wonder why the “tone” seems “harsh.”

Oh I don’t know…souls are at stake…that’s all.

or if I said “oh, those quotes are stupid and not relevant any more”. But have I said that?

I don’t think you pay much attention to them at all. Seems you take a “that was then, this is now” approach to Truth.

A bit off-topic, but how do YOU try to show Protestants the true faith?

By trying with God’s grace to live out the Faith - unabashadly and without hiding it under a bushel basket. And by trying to be totally honest and charitable with them. Those last two are not mutually exclusive by the way.

I assume they are ignorant of the Truth (this assumption places the burden of responsibility on me to share the Truth as best I can).

I don’t assume they are invincibly ignorant and use that assumption as an excuse to water down the Truth, as an excuse for telling them to “just be a good Protestant and you’ll be ok”. As a well known priest has said, “I’ve got a soul to save too you know.”

I guess if I had to sum up the approach, I’d say I always try to get them to realize just how eternally serious the stakes are, just how eternally important Truth is, and that we must not reject anything that is Truth, because in doing that, we would be rejecting Christ Himself. And how much of Christ can we reject and stil expect to enter Eternal Life with Him? Once they agree to this (and all I’ve found do), then take it from there.

Biggest hurdles I’ve found is definately not the fact that they were born protestant (most of these folks have church-hopped numerous times in their lives already, or had once been catholic to begin with), but rather, getting them over the erroneous notion that the Church no longer believes conversion is necessary.

I am sure you can quote many documents saying that being Protestant is not very good, but how do you try to bring them to the full truth? By being equally hostile to them?

I think you’d be surprised. Really.

What you think of as being “hostile”, I’ve found protestants often welcome a direct yet charitable approach as a refreshing break from the religious indifference they usually encounter from Catholics.

But come to think of it now - a JW fella did accuse me of something like hostility though. Took about 50-60 email exchanges before the charge was laid though. I’ve got 'em all saved on my computer if you’d like to take a look…quite an interesting dialogue if you could imagine.

That’'s all for now…

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[SemperFidelis]

I asked him to tell his conversion story to demonstrate to people on this forum that, contrary to your preconceived notions, charity, kindness, understanding, and most of all patience do lead to conversions.

No one is saying that charity, kindness, understanding, and patience don’t lead to conversions. Your acting like these characteristics are mutually exclusive to a false ecumenical mindset. However, I must ask you an important question. After all the kindness, understanding, etc., where was the call for conversion at the Assisi Prayer Meetings?

Consider these words from apologist Mark Shea’s dialogue with a “Traditionalist” critic of the Assisi meetings:

I’ve already read a lot of apologetics that deal with and attempt to defend John Paul II’s actions at Assisi. The truth of the matter is his actions are indefensible in light of the Traditional teachings of the Church. I suggest reading this:

(especially paragraphs #8 and #9):

papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11MORTA.HTM

(earlier on, he evens calls the ecumenical movement evil. Maybe Pope John Paul II should have listened a little better)

or this:

catholicintl.com/catholicissues/matter-of-assisi.htm

or purchasing any of these:

angeluspress.org/oscatalog/item/6604/theological-journey-part-ii,-vol-i

angeluspress.org/oscatalog/item/6716/theological-journey-part-ii,-vol-2

angeluspress.org/oscatalog/item/7080/theological-journey-part-ii,-vol-3

 

[DustinsDad]

Another article for your edification, Terrill:

ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/OUTSID.TXT

Perhaps it will clarify what the Church means when she teaches that even false religions can be used by God as means of salvation, and that far from being a Modernist innovation, this teaching dates back to the Fathers.

Please read this one.

Okay great - let’s look briefly at this big article and try to see what’s going on here…IS THERE SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH?by Fr. William Most
A recent study by Gustave Thils, “Pour une theologie de structure planetaire,” has pointed out some new possibilities for the solution of the vexing and long-standing problem, the salvation of those who are or seem to be outside the Church.[1]

Nice title to the article first of all - let’s immediately call into question an infallible dogma of the Church. Hmmmmm.

Anyway, why is this a “vexing and long standing problem”? Especially when we read the second paragraph…The question is difficult, because salvation requires not only a supernatural faith in God who requites justly, and adherence to the moral code, so far as the person knows it, but even membership in the Church. Not a few Fathers of the Church, and even Popes and Councils, have insisted on this requirement of membership.

Seems the Fathers, popes and Councils have answered the question. What’s with the “vexing and long standing problem”? Perhaps because it’s “hard to accept”. Next paragraph…From merely popular level mission magazines to more scholarly works, one so often finds mere despair about this requirement of membership. For example, a seminar on Christology at the 1984 convention of the Catholic Theological Society of America shows not a few participants not only thought the Church could be dispensed with, but even Christ Himself. Doubt was even raised over the “non-contradictory notion of truth” with a tendency to think that “truth is always perspectival.”[2]
Hmmmm, the “vexing and long standing problem” appears to be a more modern phenomena. In other words, folks in the modern age have started to doubt the constant teaching of the Church. Seems neither vexing, nor long standing to me.

Next paragraph…At the other end of the spectrum, one finds the pessimistic notion of St. Augustine that most persons are lost without really a chance and–though Augustine did not seem to share this second facet–the fundamentalistic understanding of the membership requirement, leading to heroic missionary zeal on the part of not a few Saints, anxious to rescue pagans from otherwise certain eternal ruin.
Okay - at one end, we have folks doubting the constant teaching of the Church (Fathers, Popes, Councils, etc.), at the other end we have St. Augustine (accused of being a pessimist) and (overly?) zealous missionariy saints risking life and limb to convert pagans from eternal damnation (Great Commission anyone?).

I don’t know about you, but I know what “end of the spectrum” I’d like to be on.

Anyway, the article goes on to quote the “rigid” perspective throughout the ages. Good stuff there. Rigid is good. But then, when trying to legitimize the “doubters” of EENS, he tries to point out some “broader” perspectives, and in doing so, at least one fatal flaw jumped out immediately. I’ll deal with that next. It was in his dealing with Pope Pius IX.,

*(continued…) *

 

[DustinsDad]

(continued from above…)

More from the article…
Thus Pius IX, in “Quanto conficiamur moerore” of August 10, 1863, taught:

“God . . . in His supreme goodness and clemency, by no means allows anyone to be punished with eternal punishments who does not have the guilt of voluntary fault. But it is also a Catholic dogma, that no one outside the Catholic Church can be saved, and that those who are contumacious against the authority of the same Church (and) definitions and who are obstinately (pertinaciter) separated from the unity of this Church and from the Roman Pontiff, successor of Peter, to whom the custody of the vineyard was entrusted by the Savior, cannot obtain eternal salvation.”[28]

This is a most significant text. For in it Pius IX stressed both the broad view, and the need of membership.

Well, first of all - let’s look at that quote from Quanto conficiamur moerore even a bit more in depth. Here it is again, with a bit more for context:

1. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.
2. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom “the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior.”[4] The words of Christ are clear enough: “If he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you a Gentile and a tax collector;”[5] “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me;”[6] “He who does not believe will be condemned;”[7] “He who does not believe is already condemned;”[8] “He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.”[9] The Apostle Paul says that such persons are “perverted and self-condemned;”[10] the Prince of the Apostles calls them “false teachers . . . who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master. . . bringing upon themselves swift destruction.”[11]
3. God forbid that the children of the Catholic Church should even in any way be unfriendly to those who are not at all united to us by the same bonds of faith and love. On the contrary, let them be eager always to attend to their needs with all the kind services of Christian charity, whether they are poor or sick or suffering any other kind of visitation. First of all, let them rescue them from the darkness of the errors into which they have unhappily fallen and strive to guide them back to Catholic truth and to their most loving Mother who is ever holding out her maternal arms to receive them lovingly back into her fold. Thus, firmly founded in faith, hope, and charity and fruitful in every good work, they will gain eternal salvation.
   Pope Pius IX, Quanto conficiamur moerore, 7-9
   (continued below…)

 

[DustinsDad]

(continued from above…)
The artcile you cite now continues…
Further, Pius IX is noted for his insistent condemnation of indifferentism, as we see in this passage just quoted, and in his strong-sounding “Quanta cura.” So Pius IX does not deny the obligation to formally enter the Church if one knows the truth–that would be indifferentism-- but he still could give a very broad statement which means that if one keeps the moral law as he knows it, somehow the other requirements will be met–though the Pope does not explain how.
For one thing, the author says “So Pius IX does not deny the obligation to formally enter the Church if one knows the truth” - this “if one knows the truth” can be taken two ways. One is a correct way - the person is aware, has heard, the truth proclaimed by the Church. Indeed this would be correct - this person has heard the claims of the Church, hence he knows they exist, and he must respond accordingly with the grace of God.

The other is erroneous - it’s the “fatal flaw” I spoke of earlier, and it seems to be so broadly held these days. This is the notion that a person much “know” (as in believe) the Church IS true and THEN reject her to be culpable for that rejection. This is untenable.

*All *heretics would be given a pass under this misunderstanding, since they all believe they are right. This misunderstanding is the foundation of such ridiculous comments like “Protestants just need to be good Protestants to be saved” - it blatantly ignores that which they cannot see - God’s ever present graces that enable Protestants to see the error of their ways and the Truth of Christ and His Church.

The truth is that God’s actual graces are always there to enable us to respond and to believe His Truth when it is proclaimed by His Church. For Pius IX does explain how: it’s “by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace” that God overcomes the person’s ignorance when they learn of the Church and Her claims, and then brings them into the One True Church for their salvation.

It’s the same thing traditional folks have been saying all along. Even with such ambiguous confusing recent statements such as some protestant religions are used by God as a “means of salvation” - these can be understood as God uses those elements of truth in these false religions to draw folks into His One True Chruch. He’s going to send them the graces to get 'em home.

This means for those folks who have heard the call to conversion, God will send them the graces to respond.

Now one more thing from Pope Pius IX…

(continued…)