Pope explains why he is going to Assisi-III

[Blessed_be_God]

For some reason, I can’t quote your quote of the text, but yes, another part of that encyclical that I wonder about. It seems as if the teaching of Pope Pius XI contradicts the teaching of the last two popes.

Very tricky question.

The point to note is that the contradiction only appears if the new official teachings (like from Vatican II) are interpreted by disregarding Moratalium Animos or teachings prior.

If new official church teachings are interpreted in light of Moratalium Animos, then these contradictions disappear.

The teachings on ecumenism in recent times explain how there is a need for unity and things that might help toward unity (so it is tackling a different issue than Moratalium Animos). However, when seeking this unity, people have to remember that Moratalium Animos is true and in effect even today.

So one charge on this thread would be that events such as Assissi are forgetting perhaps what is being said in Moratalium Animos. It is leading Catholics to scandal, and non-Catholics to confusion and a false certainty that their faith is also completely true.

We could even add that such actions are making it seem to the faithful that the church is contradicting its own past teachings and therefore scandalizing them even more.

 

[JReducation]

We just finished our weekly community gathering, so I’m a little tired. I’ll try to do my best here.

What a wonderful thread. I’ve learned a lot. My problem is I tend to agree with every poster at the time I read the post. :hypno:

Regarding the quote I put above, if Pope Benedict has not elaborated on Assisi, did Pope John Paul II? If Br. JR or anybody has any quotes about what Pope JP II wrote/thought about Assisi relevant to this thread, I’d be interested. Thanks.

That’s a good question. I don’t know if Bl. John Paul ever said anything about it. Obviously, he spoke to the people inside the Vatican, to the Conventual Franciscans who were going to be hosting it and to the Bishop of Assisi, because he owns the Basilica and the friary. I have never seen any statement for the general public. I’m now wondering if he may have alluded to it in one of his weekly talks. I have never seen anything.

See, but this is what my logical mind doesn’t understand. If Jesus Christ is the final revelation of God per Church teaching, then how on earth can Islam come from the same God?

This is easy. God is Trinitarian, but this was not revealed to us until the Incarnation. The OT foreshadows the forthcoming revelation, but does not mention it. However, we don’t say that Jews worship a different God. We say that Jews don’t understand the Trinity; therefore, they don’t accept Christ as God. The same understanding as the Jews have is also the understanding of the Muslims, the Mormons and the Jehovah Witnesses. None of them understand the Trinity. They all acknowledge that there is one God. And to a lesser or greater degree they understand the attributes of God. What they fail to understand is the Trinitarian nature of God. This was difficult even for the early Christians. That’s the reason for so many heresies, but they did worship the same God, even if they were heretics and said really strange things about God. One does not need to have a full understanding of God in order to worship him. God reveals his Trinitarian nature to us out of love. However, not everyone understands the revelation and not everyone has the same degree of grace to understand it. This part will always be a mystery to us.

I think the council pronouncement is actually fine because it clarifies what is lacking in Islam as well.

What I disagree with is when a Pope or a Bishop decides to say in public that “God of Islam is God of Christianity as well” and stop there. If one can’t say the full thing (which is obviously inappropriate), wouldn’t it be better to remain silent than give false impressions/cause scandal?

Not really. That’s not the way that Catholic Theology and Catholic scholarship works. We have to understand one thing about Catholicism. Catholicism is really a religion for scholars. It really does require that one dive into things and study them at their different levels. If we take them at face value, we run the risk of not understanding them. The hierarchy places the burden of study on the listener. When the Church makes this statement, the explanation is written down somewhere. It is our duty to go find it. Bishops and popes are teachers and they teach. The put things in writing, either individually or as a body. They are not responsible for our duty to read what they have written, attend classes, ask questions and try to learn. Learning is our duty.

When I was in grad school getting my theology degree, they did not give us every single doctrine, dogma and moral law. They gave us an overview. At the time of the test, they asked us about many things that they never discussed in class. It was our duty to go to the library and ot the books to find the rest of the story. If we did not understand what we read or we wanted to make sure that we understood it, it was our duty to find someone to ask, usually a professor. They made themselves available to answer questions. They did not spend a lot of time on each possible detail of Catholic theology. We really got more rules on how to learn theology, than actual theology. However, on an exam you were asked, explain the anatomy of the soul? Well, the professor never discussed it. However, he had taught you how to study it. If you used his method and went to the writings of Bonaventure, you would be able to explain the anatomy of the soul.

The Catholic Church teaches that way. Bishops and popes don’t have the time to go into long explanations for every theological, moral, pastoral or legal concept. They give you statement. You have to find out the rest of the story, like that guy on the radio used to say. I can’t recall his name.

As far as Mortalium Animus is concerned, the Pope John Paul believed that the Assisi gathering and what was being addressed in MA were not the same thing. It is his call. He has a right to make that call. Ultimately, he is the highest ranking teacher in the Church. We know that the man was not lacking in intelligence. We can’t presume to say that we understand MA better than he did. That would be arrogant on our part. If he said that these are different situations, we go back to the above. It is our job to read more until we understand why they are two different situations. Otherwise, we become a parallel Magisterium.

 

[JReducation]

You asked about assent. When a pope or a bishop gives an order and that which he orders is not a sin, he has the right to expect compliance. It has nothing to do with faith. It is about authority. I obey the cop who tells me to pull over, because he has the authority to pull me over. When the pope said to the Bishop of Assisi that they were doing this in his diocese and that he had to pay for it, he’s not asking the bishop for his opinion. He’s telling the bishop to find the money to pay for this. When he tells the Franciscans that it’s going to be in their motherhouse, he’s not asking if they agree. He’s telling them that they had better make ready for this and be there to host this. If you don’t comply, then heads will roll. This is assent to authority.

There were cases in history where certain people stood their ground, but those were cases in which the pope was wrong and he never claimed to be right. In this situation, Pope beat everyone to the draw.

Observe his statement. He said, “This has to happen.”

Let’s take the Trad side of this. “This is a sin.” Therefore, the pope is saying, “We have to sin”. A real pope cannot command the Church to sin. We have to take a position. Is he commanding us to sin? If so, then he’s not the pope.

or

No he cannot command us to sin, because he’s the pope. Therefore, this is not a sin. It may not be the best idea in the world, but it’s not a sin.

At the end of the day, he feels that it’s a good idea. Who are we to tell others that we’re right and he’s wrong? We can say that we don’t like it, but we also have to admit that no one asked us whether we liked it. Sometimes the hierarchy will ask our feelings on something and other times it will act unilaterally. As Catholics, we know this.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Blessed_be_God]

Thank you Br. JR. But I feel that you might be interchanging our required assent to teaching with that of actions of Church members. The first is a must while the latter is not always true.

To address your points,

Not really. That’s not the way that Catholic Theology and Catholic scholarship works. We have to understand one thing about Catholicism. Catholicism is really a religion for scholars. It really does require that one dive into things and study them at their different levels. If we take them at face value, we run the risk of not understanding them. The hierarchy places the burden of study on the listener. When the Church makes this statement, the explanation is written down somewhere.

The above is only true of teaching that is pronounced infallibly.

Otherwise, how would you explain Pope Honorius’s semi-public letter containing error?

The Catholic Church teaches that way. Bishops and popes don’t have the time to go into long explanations for every theological, moral, pastoral or legal concept. They give you statement. You have to find out the rest of the story, like that guy on the radio used to say. I can’t recall his name.

But what you are referring to here is teachings, no?

Actions are not the same as teachings. I think all members, right up to the Pope is capable of making wrong calls on actions including sinning.

I would think this also includes the possibility of him saying something is not a sin when he is not speaking ex-cathedra.

As far as Mortalium Animus is concerned, the Pope John Paul believed that the Assisi gathering and what was being addressed in MA were not the same thing. It is his call. He has a right to make that call. Ultimately, he is the highest ranking teacher in the Church. We know that the man was not lacking in intelligence. We can’t presume to say that we understand MA better than he did. That would be arrogant on our part. If he said that these are different situations, we go back to the above. It is our job to read more until we understand why they are two different situations. Otherwise, we become a parallel Magisterium.

I think there is a distinction to be made.

Church teachings come from interpretations of Scripture and Tradition. After an interpretation is given, the faithful can understand it. Unless the person is mentally incapacitated or still in formation, there is no point in wanting an interpreter for the interpretation, no?

In other words, Mortalium Animus states the interpretation of the church regarding certain events. To ask for another Pope to interpret the interpretation seems a bit odd. The document Mortalium Animus does not say that it is written to be later interpreted or that it is for a papal audience.
From what is written, it is clear that Assissi violates it.

In short, what I am trying to say is that to say only a Pope can interpret an interpretation must be inaccurate. For if that were true, then the faithful will have no way of making judgement on anything even in their personal lives. The church might release a document and the faithful at best can speculate what it means. They will need to go back to the church to get the full picture. Even a claim like “Assissi is good” might not be helpful according to your position because the faithful might not have interpret that properly. So this need for an interpreter for an interpretation is an exercise that can stretch forever.

So I think the position that if JPII decided it wasn’t contradicting Mortalium Animus, it must be ok, is not a valid defense. Unless, he pronounced it ex-cathedra of course or taught it through the ordinary magestirium. But he has not done so.

On the other hand, it appears pretty clearly to anyone who reads Mortalium Animus that Assissi outright contradicts it. So the Pope’s judgement on this matter seems to be simply wrong.

 

[JReducation]

Thank you Br. JR. But I feel that you might be interchanging our required assent to teaching with that of actions of Church members. The first is a must while the latter is not always true.

To address your points,

The above is only true of teaching that is pronounced infallibly.

Otherwise, how would you explain Pope Honorius’s semi-public letter containing error?

But what you are referring to here is teachings, no?

Actions are not the same as teachings. I think all members, right up to the Pope is capable of making wrong calls on actions including sinning.

I would think this also includes the possibility of him saying something is not a sin when he is not speaking ex-cathedra.

I think there is a distinction to be made.

Church teachings come from interpretations of Scripture and Tradition. After an interpretation is given, the faithful can understand it. Unless the person is mentally incapacitated or still in formation, there is no point in wanting an interpreter for the interpretation, no?

In other words, Mortalium Animus states the interpretation of the church regarding certain events. To ask for another Pope to interpret the interpretation seems a bit odd. The document Mortalium Animus does not say that it is written to be later interpreted or that it is for a papal audience.
From what is written, it is clear that Assissi violates it.

In short, what I am trying to say is that to say only a Pope can interpret an interpretation must be inaccurate. For if that were true, then the faithful will have no way of making judgement on anything even in their personal lives. The church might release a document and the faithful at best can speculate what it means. They will need to go back to the church to get the full picture. Even a claim like “Assissi is good” might not be helpful according to your position because the faithful might not have interpret that properly. So this need for an interpreter for an interpretation is an exercise that can stretch forever.

So I think the position that if JPII decided it wasn’t contradicting Mortalium Animus, it must be ok, is not a valid defense. Unless, he pronounced it ex-cathedra of course or taught it through the ordinary magestirium. But he has not done so.

On the other hand, it appears pretty clearly to anyone who reads Mortalium Animus that Assissi outright contradicts it. So the Pope’s judgement on this matter seems to be simply wrong.

We can’t say that he is simply wrong. Observe what both popes are saying. They are saying that MA is talking about one thing and what is happening here is another. They are not saying that MA is wrong. They are saying that it does not apply.

In areas of morality, a pope cannot teach error. The famous letter from Honorius that many people want to pull out as evidence is not evidence. The letter did not ask anyone to commit a sin. The letter was about his thoughts.

In this case, the pope is asking bishops and religious to do something. This he cannot do. He cannot ask anyone to sin and call it truth. The Holy Spirit protects the Church against this.

When popes have asked people to sin, they knew it was a sin and they did not call it a good. In this case, the popes are asking people to do something and they are calling it a good. No pope can do this, only an antipope can do something like this. We know that neither Bl. John Paul nor Pope Benedict are antipopes.

There is the difference between them and Honorius. Honorius was sharing his thinking and in his thinking there were errors. Popes John Paul and Benedict are actually commanding people to do certain things and when they are asked, they are saying that these are morally good and necessary. A pope cannot call evil morally good and necessary. That’s impossible. He does not need to speak ex Cathedra to do so.

In fact, no pope has ever spoken Ex Cathedra on a moral matter. They don’t need to do so. It is a given that they are always infallible in this area.

When there are two things that are similar, the pope has the duty to tell us if they are the same or not. That’s what John Paul II and Benedict XVI have done. They have said that the Assisi gathering does not fall under MA’s umbrella. It may look like it, but it’s not the same.

That’s what I mean by scholarship. I don’t mean that one needs a PhD to be Catholic. I mean that one needs to study what is behind something. In this case, one has to study what was behind MA, the philosophical systems in place, the scriptural nuances, the historical context, the target audience and the inention of the writer.

Then you have to ask the same questions about the Assisi gathering. If they don’t match up, then they are not the same thing. That’s what Bl. John Paul and Pope Benedict have done. They have addressed these academic questions and found that Assisi and MA do not match up.

That’s why the Bishop of Assisi and the Conventual Franciscan Order has to obey. If the pope were sinning, then all 1.7 million Franciscans are sinning, every bishop in the Vatican and the Bishop of Assisi and his auxiliaries and every other clergyman and religious who obeys on this issue. Do you see the magnitude of what you’re implying?

The Holy Spirit would not allow such a thing to happen.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Blessed_be_God]

Observe his statement. He said, “This has to happen.”

Let’s take the Trad side of this. “This is a sin.” Therefore, the pope is saying, “We have to sin”. A real pope cannot command the Church to sin. We have to take a position. Is he commanding us to sin? If so, then he’s not the pope.

or

No he cannot command us to sin, because he’s the pope. Therefore, this is not a sin. It may not be the best idea in the world, but it’s not a sin.

But this would appear to be a somewhat false dilemma.

There is nothing in tradition that seems to say that the Pope may not err when he is not speaking ex-cathedra. The public nature of the statement cannot automatically qualify a statement as infallible either since we have cases like Pope Honorius who has erred somewhat publicly. right?

Therefore, since no pronouncement has been made on Assissi while invoking infallibility by the Pope or the magesterium, there appears to be a third option.

“The Pope has simply erred on this matter and is committing a sin by attending Assissi which causes scandal to the faithful and non-Catholics”

Nothing in the above statement seems theologically impossible. no?

 

[Blessed_be_God]

We can’t say that he is simply wrong. Observe what both popes are saying. They are saying that MA is talking about one thing and what is happening here is another. They are not saying that MA is wrong. They are saying that it does not apply.

But is that an infallible pronouncement? Have there been any explanations on how it does not apply? If none of the above exists, then surely it at least could be a misjudgement, right?

Because to any reasonable person who reads MA, it does look like it clearly applies.

We also have to keep in mind that scandal happens whether the sinner believes it or not, right? In this case, there is scandal caused to the Catholics and non-Catholics in giving them a false certainty that their religion must be as true as Christianity.

In areas of morality, a pope cannot teach error. The famous letter from Honorius that many people want to pull out as evidence is not evidence. The letter did not ask anyone to commit a sin. The letter was about his thoughts.

In this case, the pope is asking bishops and religious to do something. This he cannot do. He cannot ask anyone to sin and call it truth. The Holy Spirit protects the Church against this.

I might be wrong, but if I understand correctly, the Holy Spirit protects the Church from teaching error. But a Pope is a free human being and he is surely free to command others to sin.

To think of an example from history, would a Borgia Pope who commanded an assassin to take the life of an enemy not have sinned?

When popes have asked people to sin, they knew it was a sin and they did not call it a good. In this case, the popes are asking people to do something and they are calling it a good. No pope can do this, only an antipope can do something like this. We know that neither Bl. John Paul nor Pope Benedict are antipopes.

I think what you mean to say is that no Pope can infallibly pronounce something bad as good.

But I see no reason why a fallible human being cannot make an incorrect judgement on something when he is not invoking infallibility.

There is the difference between them and Honorius. Honorius was sharing his thinking and in his thinking there were errors. Popes John Paul and Benedict are actually commanding people to do certain things and when they are asked, they are saying that these are morally good and necessary. A pope cannot call evil morally good and
necessary. That’s impossible. He does not need to speak ex Cathedra to do so.

But just like with the hypothetical case where a Borgia Pope orders an assassin to take the life of one of his enemies without just cause, I don’t see how there is any rule that states that the Pope may not command someone to do immoral things.

In fact, no pope has ever spoken Ex Cathedra on a moral matter. They don’t need to do so. It is a given that they are always infallible in this area.

But moral matters have been addressed through the ordinary magesterium and hence infallibly defined.

I am also not sure there is any statement that makes them immune from commanding immoral things.

The Holy Spirit would not allow such a thing to happen.

I think this is not really true. Do you have references to show that such protection extends to all commands by Popes?

Because the Holy Spirit can certainly allow immoral activity in the church. But the Holy Spirit will however ensure that the Church will triumph in the end.

So the infallibility of the church is also with respect to church teachings. It does not extend to something that a Pope or a bishop might command without invoking infallibility and would be historically contradicted if it did too, no?

 

[JReducation]

But this would appear to be a somewhat false dilemma.

There is nothing in tradition that seems to say that the Pope may not err when he is not speaking ex-cathedra. The public nature of the statement cannot automatically qualify a statement as infallible either since we have cases like Pope Honorius who has erred somewhat publicly. right?

Therefore, since no pronouncement has been made on Assissi while invoking infallibility by the Pope or the magesterium, there appears to be a third option.

“The Pope has simply erred on this matter and is committing a sin by attending Assissi which causes scandal to the faithful and non-Catholics”
**
Nothing in the above statement seems theologically impossible. no?**

It is theologically impossible for the pope to command the Church to sin. Pope Honorius did not command anyone to sin.

In this case, observe this carefully, the pope is commanding the Franciscans to host the gathering. His commanding the bishops in the curia to support it. He is commanding the Bishop of Assisi to make it happen and to get the people of his diocese to pay for it.

If this is a sin, then the pope is commanding all of these people to sin.

When asked, the pope said, “This must happen.”

Once he says that, there is no doubt that there is no sin here. A pope cannot say “This must happen and by the way, this is a grave sin.” That’s never happened.

The pope has actually called this a moral good. The pope is protected by the Holy Spirit. He need not invoke infallibility or make it Ex Cathedra. No pope has ever invoked infallibility or said anything Ex Cathedra in matters of morals. There is no need to do so. When a pope says that something is morally good, it is morally good. There is no need to invoke anything.

Ex Cathedra has only been used for two dogmas and for canonizations. The Church always assumes that the pope speaks infallibly on morality.

If you turn this into a moral question and you ask the pope, “Isn’t this a sin?” And the pope answers, “No it’s not a sin. It’s necessary that we do this.” He has made a moral statement.

At this point, I think that you need to back off this and leave it to the pope. I’m getting the sense that you’re tying yourself in knots over this. I hope I’m wrong.

But I would offer this. There are 1.7 million Franciscans. There are hundreds of bishops and cardinals. There is the bishop of a diocese invovled here. There is the entire Vatican Curia and no one has questioned the morality of Assisi. The question that was asked was, “is this prudent and safe?” No one asked, “is this a sin?” The pope had already closed that door.

I would strongly suggest that we leave it closed or we’re going to end up in sedevacantism. It’s the only way that we would be able to explain that the pope is leading all of these people into sin and calling it a necesssary good. A true pope can NEVER call an evil a necessary good. He does not need to invoke anything to be protected from this error.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Blessed_be_God]

It is theologically impossible for the pope to command the Church to sin. Pope Honorius did not command anyone to sin.

Could you provide a reference to a church document that defines infallibility as extending to all commands by the Pope? Because I think this seems to have become the pivot point of this discussion.

As far as I am aware, there is nothing stopping the Pope from doing something immoral like commanding his bishops and priests to do something wrong unless he invokes infallibility of course. The Pope is a fallible human being with respect to his acts. He is only infallible when he teaches. And that too when he is invoking infallibility. But I could of course be wrong.

So I think if you could kindly produce documents from perhaps a council which state that by virtue of it being a mere command by the Pope, it must be infallible, then this discussion could indeed end on a satisfactory note for many.

 

[Blessed_be_God]

I would strongly suggest that we leave it closed or we’re going to end up in sedevacantism. It’s the only way that we would be able to explain that the pope is leading all of these people into sin and calling it a necesssary good. A true pope can NEVER call an evil a necessary good. He does not need to invoke anything to be protected from this error.

I would just like to clarify. I do not think this leads to sedevacantism.

It would just imply that the Pope has made an incorrect judgement when he was not protected by infallibility.

While it is problematic, it does not mean that he is not a Pope just as much as it would be wrong to say Alexander VI was not Pope.

 

[baylee]

This is easy. God is Trinitarian, but this was not revealed to us until the Incarnation. The OT foreshadows the forthcoming revelation, but does not mention it. However, we don’t say that Jews worship a different God. We say that Jews don’t understand the Trinity; therefore, they don’t accept Christ as God. The same understanding as the Jews have is also the understanding of the Muslims, the Mormons and the Jehovah Witnesses. None of them understand the Trinity. They all acknowledge that there is one God. And to a lesser or greater degree they understand the attributes of God. What they fail to understand is the Trinitarian nature of God. This was difficult even for the early Christians. That’s the reason for so many heresies, but they did worship the same God, even if they were heretics and said really strange things about God. One does not need to have a full understanding of God in order to worship him. God reveals his Trinitarian nature to us out of love. However, not everyone understands the revelation and not everyone has the same degree of grace to understand it. This part will always be a mystery to us.

No, I don’t think it’s that simple. I think when we say that Muslims, etc all believe in the same God, we are referring to God the Father. However, Muslims believe that that same God the Father revealed new things to Mohammed after He already fully revealed things through Christ. This simply can not be true. Therefore, those revelations could not have come from the same God.

As for the Jews, although still wrong, I would place them in a different place because they just haven’t accepted the fullness of God’s revelation. They do believe in the same God the Father. They are not purporting some new revelation.

 

[baylee]

Could you provide a reference to a church document that defines infallibility as extending to all commands by the Pope? Because I think this seems to have become the pivot point of this discussion.

As far as I am aware, there is nothing stopping the Pope from doing something immoral like commanding his bishops and priests to do something wrong unless he invokes infallibility of course. The Pope is a fallible human being with respect to his acts. He is only infallible when he teaches. And that too when he is invoking infallibility. But I could of course be wrong.

So I think if you could kindly produce documents from perhaps a council which state that by virtue of it being a mere command by the Pope, it must be infallible, then this discussion could indeed end on a satisfactory note for many.

Yes, I would like to see that as well. I would also like to see the explanation from the recent popes as to why Assisi doesn’t fall under MA. I’m just not seeing it. To me it seems so clear. But I admit I could be completely wrong.

 

[JReducation]

I would just like to clarify. I do not think this leads to sedevacantism.

It would just imply that the Pope has made an incorrect judgement when he was not protected by infallibility.

While it is problematic, it does not mean that he is not a Pope just as much as it would be wrong to say Alexander VI was not Pope.

We have a misunderstanding here. Let me try it this way.

A pope can tell his henchmen to go kill someone. He can order his armies to slaughter an entire nation. He can have three concubines. But he can never say that any of these things are a moral good. This is where infallibility kicks in. He cannot call an evil a moral good.

He can say it’s a great idea. He can even deceive his minions into thinking that they are doing something good for the world. But he cannot call it a moral good.

In this case, Pope Benedict has said, “This is necessary”. No pope can call an evil necessary. A pope can do evil and can command his minions to do evil. But he cannot call evil necessary. That would be contrary to what Christ promised Peter and it would make him an antipope.

In the history of the Church, not pope has ever said, “I know this is a sin, but it’s a necessary sin.” There is no such thing as a necessary sin. Evil is never necessary.

The pope is not trying to say that this is evil and necessary. He’s saying that this is a necessary good. There is no getting around this. The Church does not leave us room for discussion once a pope calls something a necessary good.

We can go around this 30 times and come back to the same thing.

You’re implying that the pope is sinning and that over one million people who are obeying him are also sinning. Do you see the magnitude of what you’re implying?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[AntiqueCatholic]

Their way is not necessarily invalid though. There are elements of Truth in Protestantism. The picture might be out of focus sometimes, sometimes grievously so, other times not so much. This fact however, does not invalidate the parts that are valid; the Church teaches this. Most Protestants are Protestants in good faith, and love Christ with all their heart. It is most emphatically not a sin to be Protestant. It is a sin to become Protestant if you’re Catholic. For most Protestants though, it was their forefathers who sinned 500 or so years ago, and they were brought up in Protestant cultures and Protestant families. How could they be anything other than Protestant in those circumstances? Their Protestantism is just as deeply in their culture as Catholicism is in Ireland or Italy.

Look at it this way: we are told as Catholics to care for the souls of our brothers. If we drive a brother or sister to sin, their sin stains us as well. This is important to remember, because if we do not act in charity when we try to “fraternally correct” them, and we drive them even further from our Church, then we have sinned as grievously as we claim we do when we do not “fraternally correct” them. I have heard it often on this site that we are to fraternally correct our brothers as justification for pointing out others’ errors, but if we do so clumsily, then we have accomplished nothing or worse. It’s not as easy to do as it is to say.
Amen!

That’s not been my experience. You just speak the truth, in charity. People aren’t used to it and find it refreshing.

The problem with Protestantism is that it’s a facsimile of the Truth, a diversion. It’s cafeteria Christianity; pick and choose the bits you like. You can be an excellent Christian in all points save one; one thing you’ve reasoned yourself into thinking is ok, e.g. artificial contraception. Maybe your conscience protests a bit, but you talk over it.

Is that enough to get you damned? I’ll leave that to the theologians and mystics.

Now there are Protestant individuals and Protestant Churches; each, as a body, an entity, can reject the Truth. What use are such entities to people who desire union with God? They can convince others to follow a path that deviates from the Truth and the Way to a greater or lesser degree.

If Catholics today were strong and sure in their faith, entertaining Protestants and their ideas might be a useful prelude to conversion, but now I think that it’s so bad that there is a grave danger of confusion and apostasy, to Catholics, if our religious and Catholic secular leaders dally with the current eco-pan-sexual-tolerance-for-peace-and-justice meme that’s befuddling people’s brains today.

Want a sobering read? Read Jesus’ statements in the Bible and in things like the Divine Mercy apparitions. Look at the life of St. Padre Pio said. Read the lives of the Saints. If God went to the trouble to incarnate and die a cruel death do you think that intellectual niceties, that lead to pick-and-mix Christianity, sit well with Him?

 

[Blessed_be_God]

He cannot call an evil a moral good.
He can say it’s a great idea. He can even deceive his minions into thinking that they are doing something good for the world. But he cannot call it a moral good.

Is this true at any time? Specifically, when he is not invoking infallibility?

Because this is what I was referring to in my post before the last (Post 105).

On a side note, I am not sure that either of the Pope’s explicitly stated that Assissi was a moral good, no?

In this case, Pope Benedict has said, “This is necessary”. No pope can call an evil necessary. A pope can do evil and can command his minions to do evil. But he cannot call evil necessary. That would be contrary to what Christ promised Peter and it would make him an antipope.

I think I understand your position more clearly now Br. JR.

But this still does not say why the Pope can’t simply say something is necessary, right? I am aware of doctrinal authority of the Pope. But I am not aware that any statement, by virtue of the fact that it contains the word necessary in it, must be infallible.

Is there such a document that extends his infallibility to all statements or commands made using the word ‘necessary’?

You’re implying that the pope is sinning and that over one million people who are obeying him are also sinning. Do you see the magnitude of what you’re implying?

You have to admit though, magnitude and number of people engaged in sin do not necessarily state if the pronouncement is right or wrong, right?

If it were true that millions are sinning, it would just mean that the Pope needs to correct the error as soon as possible.

 

[OraLabora]

That’s not been my experience. You just speak the truth, in charity. People aren’t used to it and find it refreshing.

With all due respect, and in charity, I’ve been married to a Protestant for the last 23 years. I can assure you that while what you suggest may seem “refreshing” a cocktail party, it won’t go one inch towards improving life in community, and in fact will lead to animosity that will be very damaging.

And yes, I learned this through the school of hard knocks. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt, accomplished nothing by it except rancor. Took a long time to heal that.

 

[GraceSofia]

On the other hand, it appears pretty clearly to anyone who reads Mortalium Animus that Assissi outright contradicts it. So the Pope’s judgement on this matter seems to be simply wrong.

Okay, well since I said earlier that I was tending to agree with every post when I read it, let me say that this post has gone too far and do not agree with this at all.

Comparing *Mortalium Animus *to Assissi is comparing apples and oranges. The Pope is not going to get down on a prayer mat and say alahuakbar nor is he going to drink grape juice from a Protestant minister. And that is what I understand is meant by “10. So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics.”

 

[Blessed_be_God]

Okay, well since I said earlier that I was tending to agree with every post when I read it, let me say that this post has gone too far and do not agree with this at all.

Comparing *Mortalium Animus *to Assissi is comparing apples and oranges. The Pope is not going to get down on a prayer mat and say alahuakbar nor is he going to drink grape juice from a Protestant minister. And that is what I understand is meant by “10. So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics.”

Thank you Grace Sofia for your insight.

I think I did not conclude properly on this thread.

What we have to understand is that the Pope deciding to attend or hold Assissi or any other scandalizing “ecumenical” gathering is a prudential judgement call on his part. Catholics are actually free to disagree with him and in-fact, it might be a pretty bad decision by the Pope. He is not protected by infallibility unless he invokes it. Br. JR did try to indicate that he is by virtue of the word ‘necessity’ but has not provided any reference document or council pronouncement that states as such. In my knowledge, there is no such extension of infallibility.

But, if we forget about all the infallibility and other complex issues surrounding Assissi, one thing is certainly clear. It is very reasonable to see that at the end of the event, a non-Catholic participant feels that his religion must also be true as Christianity. This feeling is problematic in two ways.

1. Since it seems to re-enforce the conviction that ones own religion is powerful and true (they are encouraged to pray to their respective deities after all), why should they seek unity with the Catholic faith? It would be better to simply agree on guidelines to not try to convert each other. - So counterproductive for seeking unity
2. Since the event gives a false certainty, and causes scandal, it is a sin.

Aside from this, there is the issue of scandalizing Catholics themselves. The irony here is that the Pope and Bishops might say that it doesn’t happen. But the very fact that the faithful are asking questions, some people are thinking that the church is contradicting it-self, more young Catholics are leaving their faith for Protestantism or Sedevecantism is proof that there is scandal being caused by these events.

It would not make much valid sense to say that Assissi does not lead people to confusion when people are actually saying they are confused, right? It’s like telling a person who got robbed that people don’t get robbed.

The final thing that needs to be addressed is that many seem to claim that Assissi must be good because it might/will give good results. Unfortunately, this is not true in general. God brings about good from evil acts. To give a different example, World War II lead to the creation of the United Nations. But it does not mean that World War II was good.

So while Assissi might lead to good results, it does not mean that Assissi is a commendable event. Many Catholics might be lost to scandal and many hearts of non-Catholics might be hardened due to such events.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

Accusing the pope of a public sin and leading others to sin is a very serious allegation. This is a Catholic Apostolate faithful to the Holy See. Unless the competent authority makes such a charge, we do not tolerate such claims.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

If we think about martyrdom, this would not really be applicable here. Our martyrs died for one of the following reasons:

1. Refused to recant on their faith.
2. Considered criminals for preaching the faith, as was often the case in Asia.
3. Were suspect of evil, because of their practice of the faith, as was with the martyrs in North America
4. Stood up for social justice and the dignity of human life, as did Miguel Pro and Maximilian Kolbe

The Holy Father is not recanting on his faith or the faith of the Church.

No one is accusing him of being a criminal for being Catholic. In fact, the non-Catholics are visiting one of the most Catholic cities in the world.

He is not suspect of evil because he is Catholic.

There is no injustice against human or religious rights being committed at this event. The Holy Father is trying to get these leaders to commit their people in the fight against such injustice.

Given that the martyrs were men and women who were a product of their time and many of them lived in a time when there was much antagonism between Catholics and non-Catholics, this kind of activity would be unthinkable to them; but that does not make it wrong. Francis of Assisi thought that riding horses was scandalous. In his day and age, it was scandalous. Dominic thought that women religious doing catechesis was heresy. Therefore, after he founded the Dominican nuns, he founded the friars to do this work. The nuns remained in the cloister praying for the Brother Preachers.

Fastforward the clock, today the situation is different. The antagonism seems to be more between faith of any kind and political factions. Even pagans are being attacked by those with political agendas. Look at Tibet. Look at what Radical Islamic rebels do to their own people. Look at what our Christian and at times Catholic leaders do to the Christian and Catholic faith right here in the USA. We have a political movement that is systematically attacking the rights of Catholics to be Catholic.

To the martyrs, our current situation would be very strange, especially our situation in the USA, Catholics antagonistic toward Catholicism was unheard of to them. The only martyrs that I can think who would understand the current situation would be Edith Stein and Maximilian Kolbe.

On the flip side, we have saintly people who did stand side by side with people of other faiths for prayer and for peace and who did and do a great deal of good and exercise a great deal of influence. Look at Bl. Mother Teresa. There are thousands of people, Indian and non Indian, who attribute their conversion to her example.

Look at the Missionaries of the Poor. They have brought many people into the faith without ever saying a single word. They simply go out and pray, work and serve along with people of other faiths.

Look at the Franciscans in the Middle East. They have been successful missionaries for 800 years. Since 1223, they have been there. They have prayed with Muslims and Jews. They have never uttered a single word against Islam or Judaism. They have built schools, family centers, dispensaries and other organizations and institutions that serve Muslims, Jews and Christians. One of the most impressive reports that comes out of the region is that in the communities where the Franciscans are present, the local people live in peace while they retain the faith. These seem to be the only communities where there is no conflict. They seem to get caught in the crossfire. Just a few years ago, Pope Benedict gave his blessing to the first Catholic University in Jordan, which is going to be a joint venture between Muslims and Catholics… The Franciscans from the Custody, I believe it’s Pallotines, and Muslim scholars are going to run it. They currently run the only integrated school for the disabled in Jordan.

Those who used the “in your face” method have never had such success. Those who have been very non-threatening and non-confrontational, such as was St. Maximmilian Kolbe in Japan, Mother Teresa in India, the Franciscans in the Holy Land and the Missionaries of the Poor in the Caribbean, have met with great success.

We don’t hear much about it, but it’s there. In some countries you can’t speak much about it, because it’s illegal to be a card-carrying Christian. Also, success is like a tree. I grows while you’re not looking. You can’t alwasy see success as it’s happening, just as you can’t see the tree growing if you stand there and stare at it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Please keep offering your thoughts and responses in this thread, Brother. Your perspective is marked by much wisdom and very clear thinking.