Pope explains why he is going to Assisi-III

[JReducation]

The Holy Fathe said:

However, this commemoration would have to have been celebrated in some way and, all things considered, it seemed to me that the best thing would be for me to personally go there being thus able to determine the direction of it all. I will nevertheless do everything in order that a syncretistic or relativistic interpretation of the event will be impossible

I underlined the key ideas in his message.

This does not mean that surprises cannot happen. But we can’t always anticipate surprises. You deal with them if they happen and you do the best you can.

I would be upset and worried if there were surprises and everyone stood there with their arms crossed. If people tell me that there was a surprise and they tried to do the best the could without causing a storm, I’m not about to tell them that I could have handled it better, because I don’t know if I could have.

The Holy Father believes that this has to take place and he believes that he can keep things under control and be consistent with his message on syncretism and relativism. I trust that he will do his best to pull it off.

I have no right to tell him not to do so.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Melchior_1]

If someone showed up at my Church and attempted to sacrifice a chicken, I can guarantee you that I would have no hesitancy in putting a stop to it. And I would expect that all my fellow Catholics would do the same - certainly the men! No real Catholic man would stand for such a sacrilege.

You instruct like this, and the person proceeds to be turned off of Catholicism , and will tell all his friends about his terrible experience.

You instruct with Charity, like the Friar did, you make a more powerful message.

The Friar did stop it, and did instruct. He did it with Charity. I don’t know about you, but being charitable to others doesn’t make someone less of a Catholic man.

 

[G_Inquisitor]

You instruct like this, and the person proceeds to be turned off of Catholicism , and will tell all his friends about his terrible experience.

You instruct with Charity, like the Friar did, you make a more powerful message.

The Friar did stop it, and did instruct. He did it with Charity. I don’t know about you, but being charitable to others doesn’t make someone less of a Catholic man.

Please tell me you are kidding.

Do you realize that sins against the first commandment are worse than sins against the other commandments? With that in mind, if an abortion doctor showed up at a Catholic Church, and attempted to murder an innocent baby on the altar, it would be less serious than a pagan sacrificing a chicken on the altar.

Tell me, according to you distorted view of “charity” would it be best to allow the abortion doctor to commit murder, so as not to offed him? After all, what would he say to his friends if you stopped him from committing the act?

True charity is the love of God first, and the love of neighbor flowing from the love of God. True charity will do all it can to stop a person from offedning God, and defiling his own soul. False charity will tolerate sin so as not to offend man.

 

[Melchior_1]

Please tell me you are kidding.

Do you realize that sins against the first commandment are worse than sins against the other commandments? With that in mind, if an abortion doctor showed up at a Catholic Church, and attempted to murder an innocent baby on the altar, it would be less serious than a pagan sacrificing a chicken on the altar.

Tell me, according to you distorted view of “charity” would it be best to allow the abortion doctor to commit murder, so as not to offed him? After all, what would he say to his friends if you stopped him from committing the act?

True charity is the love of God first, and the love of neighbor flowing from the love of God. True charity will do all it can to stop a person from offedning God, and defiling his own soul. False charity will tolerate sin so as not to offend man.

The reports coming from the Friars, at least with what Brother JR was saying, would seem to indicate the fellow was finishing up whatever he was doing or already done. The person in question didn’t ask for permission or anything, he just went ahead and did it. A Friar walked in as it was at the point where whatever was happening was already done.

What’s done is done, you can’t change the past. The Friar fraternally corrected the fellow and let him know why it wasn’t kosher, the gentleman then understood why it wasn’t good and apologized.

I can see your point of view if the guy asked for permission and received it. I can understand your point of view if the Friar stood there and let him do it from start to finish. But it looks like, according to reports from the Friars themselves, that wasn’t what happened.

If you go in with guns’a’blazing after someone made a genuine error without knowing it was wrong, AFTER they already did it, you probably won’t win many converts. Using your example of an abortion, lets say you’re doing some pro-life ministry outside of an abortion clinic. You just started your “shift” outside the clinic, and you see a woman walk out, she just had an abortion. She walks right up to you and starts talking. How exactly you plan on correcting her? Would you call that mother a murderer or would provide a charitable response?

If you walked into a room and you see an abortion just finished, would you tell everyone they’re all damned to hell, mother included?

If you walked in before it happened, you can stop it. If you walk in when it’s finishing, it’s different. That’s what we’re talking about here. Getting confrontational, as pleasing as it can be sometimes, isn’t always the best approach. Dominic and Francis didn’t think so, and I’m inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Melchior_1]

Again, we’re seeing some differences on how we approach things, and a lot of them have to do with the way people live out their faith.

It’s no secret on these boards that after a lengthy discernment process that I fashion my life after Dominic. Within a few years, God willing, he will become my Holy Father. Because of this, I approach things the way he taught his followers to. Critical thinking, analysis, prayer. All of that tempered with Mercy.

Looking at the situation, objectively, we have someone who didn’t know any better do something that he earnestly and honestly thought was fine. You have someone walk in and witness the act being finished or already been completed. There was no chance to stop it from happening, it already happened. How this person reacts and deals with this essentially represents the whole Church, and the impressions left with the fellow will have ramifications. How will he react to outrage? How will he react to fraternal correction?

Will he tell his friends if his mistake? Yes he will. The question then becomes what the spin will be:

A) “The Friar tore me a new one, even though I didn’t know any better. I understand why he was upset, but he didn’t need to be that confrontational”.

The fellow probably will start getting defensive too.

B) “The Friar was very kind to me, and corrected my errors. I now know why we can’t do this. I didn’t feel belittled or disrespected”.

Respect was given, and will be returned. He will have positive things to say on his experience, and may want to learn more about this Friar and how he could remain so loving despite what happened.

Based on those two scenarios, I’d say the second one is better. The same is applicable with the Buddha statue situation.

Again, this is all under the impression the Friar showed up after it happened.

 

[JReducation]

Please tell me you are kidding.

Do you realize that sins against the first commandment are worse than sins against the other commandments? With that in mind, if an abortion doctor showed up at a Catholic Church, and attempted to murder an innocent baby on the altar, it would be less serious than a pagan sacrificing a chicken on the altar.

Tell me, according to you distorted view of “charity” would it be best to allow the abortion doctor to commit murder, so as not to offed him? After all, what would he say to his friends if you stopped him from committing the act?

True charity is the love of God first, and the love of neighbor flowing from the love of God. True charity will do all it can to stop a person from offedning God, and defiling his own soul. False charity will tolerate sin so as not to offend man.

I think God would tolerate a chicken more than an abortion. Neither is a good thing to do, but God is much more reasonable than you’re giving him credit for.

Killing a chicken does not threaten an innocent life. One has time to think about the best way to approach the situation without creating a scene, which would have embarrassed the pope. Then one can approach the situation and deal with it calmly.

No one is saying that anyone tolerated sin, except you. What is being said is that the situation was dealt with as best as the friars could given the fact that it caught them off guard. Can you tell us what you would have done differently?

The friars approached the individuals and explained the problem. The individuals apologized and removed the problem. Were the friars supposed to call in the Swiss Guard and chop of their heads? Throw them out on their ears? You don’t throw out the pope’s guests. Scream hollar and rant? Not exactly what Francis would expect from his sons. Which is the very reason that Assisi is chosen for these events, because of the patience and gentleness of the friars there. This does not mean that a Jesuit is not capable of such patience and gentleness. It’s simply that the friars are known by pagans, Muslims, Jews and Christians and are trusted. Other religious institutes have very holy men too. But they are not as well known or as well trusted by these people.

Before we criticize and judge we must ask ourselves how we would have handled the situation without embarassing the pope, without violating the trust of these people, without offending them and setting back the whole attempt to bring peace, without dragging it out.

It is very hard to be the host at any of these events. I’m glad I’m not there. I take my hats off to the Conventual Franciscans. They’re the ones who have to deal with the stress and then take the flack for whatever goes wrong. It’s almost a setup, because they can’t say “No” to the pope. They have to do the best they can and that’s what they do.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Oneofthewomen]

It saddens me to see so much doubt and questioning regarding the Holy Father’s decisions, with Assisi and other things. If anything, it seems to me that this gathering at Assisi is a perfect example of Francis’ instruction to “preach the Gospel at all time, use words when necessary.” A safe and welcoming place, where holy men & women from every tradition can come together and work for the common goal of peace. Seems like a noble pursuit to me.

Thank you Br. Jay, for another series of enlightening and educational posts,
I learn so much from you!
God bless you!!

 

[Blessed_be_God]

Thank you once again Br. JR for your clarification.

But I do still have issues with the following.

No. Nor will there ever be, because it’s not necessary. History itself gives us this example. The scriptures were put together by the Church, more than a century after the death of the last apostle.

I think that you might have misunderstood. The putting together of Scripture by the church was not prudential judgement. It was merely an exercise of infallibility of the Church.

The church teachings are infallible when they are pronounced through the Ordinary Magesterium or Ex Cathedra by the Pope. But prudential judgement calls are not.

With Assissi, it is a matter of action of individuals, not church teaching.

Then there is the assent of the will. That’s what you must obey and comply with. This does not require that you agree or believe. It requires that you submit to authority. Authority has the right to demand this kind of assent on all things but sin.

But what many here are pointing out is that Pope is indeed sinning by attending Assissi. He is causing faithful to be scandalized which is a sin.

So one cannot defend the Pope in this case by saying we must give full assent to him unless it is a sin. That presupposes that the Pope is not doing something sinful. The main objection to the Pope’s actions is that he is doing something sinful and imprudent.

Therefore, the canon that says that Catholics have a right to express their concerns to their pastors and pastors have a duty to listen, does not apply to the pope. He has no obligation to listen to us.

I completely agree with you.

But the point being discussed here is whether the Pope is right or wrong in his actions. He may not listen to us but I think the faithful need to know. Would you agree?

Since what he has decided is not sinful, he has the right to be obeyed. For something to be sinful it must be overtly contrary to the law of God and be recognized as such by legitimate Church authority, not by the faithful.

I am not sure I understand. If we look to Church history, events such as Assissi would indeed be condemned as a danger to the faith.

Can’t we just look at past church teaching and decide on the Pope’s actions? Or are you saying that we must always wait for the church to decide?

Take a case of a Borgia Pope who might have engaged in sexual activity. If he thinks that it is ok, do we need to wait till the church decides that he is wrong?

That’s the reason that Paul goes to Peter with his concern. Paul knew that something was wrong. But he did not have the authority to call it a sin or to change it. Only Peter could do that.

Of course. But that is missing the point. St. Paul clearly disagreed with St. Peter and publicly reproached him. He did not need St. Peter to tell him that it was wrong.

So I am not sure what you are saying here (that the pope needs to decide whether something is wrong every time) applies. I think one can, given existing teaching, decide on whether the judgement is correct or incorrect.

Not really. It can be, but does not have to be. One can have valid concerns and later find out that we had no need to worry. Therefore, it does not follow that because your concerns are valid, the pope’s actions are scandalous.

I am not sure I understand. If the Pope’s actions are scandalous, it is scandalous. If some good comes out of it, it does not mean that the Pope’s actions were not scandalous.

God can bring about good from evil. So when good comes out of an evil act, it does not mean that the act was not evil to begin with, right?

You answer the question and you move along. You don’t listen to it any more. It’s over as far as you’re concerned. Eventually, God will do what he will do.

But this is true with any individual too. When you warn someone that they are sinning, they can listen to what you say, and still stick to sin. That is a perfectly valid option. However, it does not mean that he is not sinning, no?

 

[Blessed_be_God]

You can always disagree. What you can never do is ruin another person’s good name. This is where we have to be very careful. There are people who disagree with this so strongly that they have attacked the popes moral character. That’s unacceptable. That’s more than disagreement. That’s an assault.

Let us keep this discussion purely on an academic level Br. JR.

If the Pope has indeed taken part in sinful acts, it is just that. He is fallible as you and I.

St. Paul was a secular priest, not a consecrated man. He was also a bishop; therefore, he was his own boss.

So Bishops do have the right to object to the Pope’s actions?

In this case, the pope is not asking us to sin. There are people who are interpreting this as sin. However, as long as Peter himself says that it’s not a sin, then it’s not. The one area where Peter does not need to invoke infallibility is in the area of morals. It’s an automatic.

I am not sure this is correct.

St. Peter was objectively wrong in his decision to not eat with Pagans. Whether he recanted his position or not, it would have been objectively wrong.

Similarly, a Pope like Alexander VI who engaged in immoral activity could be condemned by observers of his actions even though he might not listen, no?

It sounds like a bad joke. The friars say that the monk did place the Buddha on top of a tabernacle, which was empty. The friars had taken the Blessed Sacrament away. However, when the friars saw it, they POLITELY explained to the monk what the tabernacle was for and the removed the Buddha and was very apologetic. The friar proceeded to find him a place to put it.

I honestly have not heard about these things in detail but I can see such events taking place in such a gathering.

I am not sure if you are aware but Buddha is just a man. Not even a God. Do you think it moral to encourage any worship to such a statue of him?

Have you ever heard the pope say a half-truth?

When the Pope says for an example that “God of Islam is also the God of Christianity”, it is a half truth, isn’t it?

Because that statement alone says that either religion I follow, I am listening to the same God. But that is not true.

Pope Benedict said in an interview that he understood the meaning of scandal and this always concerns him. I’m paraphrasing. If we go looking for the bad, we’re always going to find something. That’s a very dangerous way of thinking that we have to avoid. Too many people make it a habit to look for the bad.

But sin of scandal is real. Just because we do not look for the bad, it does not go away.

I think what you might be trying to say is that some good may come out of this events. I agree. But that does not mean the event is good, prudent or moral. Good can come out of even purely EVIL acts because God can do that. But the ends do not justify the means.

The missionaries who were martyred went as evangelists. The pope is not going to Assisi to evangelize. He has made this very clear.

I know. The problem is that it seems to suggest that evangelizing is really not necessary. According to the spirit of Assissi, the people who gave up their lives for such a cause were following a dead ideology. So its not even martydom anymore but a death due to a false belief. It further suggests that they should have prayed with the natives to their respective deities instead.

All of these elements seem problematic. Don’t they?

 

[JReducation]

Blessed_Be

I can’t speak to all of your points, because there are too many for this mode of dialogue, but I’ll try to cover as many as I can within the given space. OK?

For the pope or anyone to be culpable of sin, three conditions must be met: it must be grave, there must be knowledge and there must be full consent of the will. This is where this event does not match up with the Borgia papacy and his concubine. In the Borgia case, what the pope did was condemned by scripture and Church. There was no doubt.

In this situation, the pope himself is telling us that it is not a sin. He has the authority to make this statement, because the situation is unique. It has never existed before. A judgment has to be made. It is his place to make that moral judgment. Therefore, if he says it’s not a sin. It isn’t. This is part of Peter’s authority to bind and unbind and to teach his brethren. We, the faithful, cannot overrule the pope on a moral statement. We may say that we’re confused, because the situation looks like the kind of thing that has been condemned as a sin in the past. Then the pope says that even though it looks like it, it is not the same. That’s the end of the discussion. No one, not even another pope can overrule that. Popes are always infallible on matters of morality.

This doesn’t mean they can’t sin. It means that they can’t call something a good when in fact it’s a sin. Otherwise, the man is not the pope. We now have two popes calling this gathering a good and not a sin. That discussion is over. No bishop in this Catholic Church and no pope is going to contradict this. They may not like the idea, because they feel it’s a bad idea, but they can’t call it a sin, once Peter has said it is not.

The case between Paul and Peter was not that Peter was sinning. It was that Peter was holding on to an old law, which excluded the Gentiles. The law in itself was not a sinful law. The issue was a matter of discipline. Paul and Peter debate over the validity of the prescription. Paul persuades Peter. Had Peter held his ground, Paul would have had to assent, because you cannot overrule Peter. Peter relents, because the Holy Spirit guides him to do so. This is a perfect example of the law that says you can take your concern to the ecclesial authorities and they have to listen. Once they listen, what happens next is up to the Holy Spirit and free will cooperating.

In this case, people have been heard. The pope has answered, as we have seen. There is nothing else for the pope to say and there is nothing else for us to say other than “We still don’t understand.” That’s a legitimate statement. We can remain confused about something for many reasons, beginning with the possibility that the answer is not clear or it’s not what we want to hear, etc. You get the idea.

Once he has answered and said that this is something that must be done, as he has said, then the Church owes him assent. This is not an assent of faith, because this is not a dogma that he’s putting on the table. He’s exercising his authority as Peter. We cannot deny Peter our assent, especially when Peter says, “You’re mistaken. It’s not a sin.” If our only reason to deny assent is that this is a sin, but he has already said, “No it’s not.” Then who’s right? The pope or me? We can’t both be right and there can only be one pope. Only the pope is gifted with infallibility in moral matters. Therefore, we don’t have a leg to stand on when we say, “No we will not follow directions and support him.” That is simple defiance.

Bishops can disagree with the prudence of something. In order to remain in communion with Peter, they may not disobey, defy, or claim to have a greater moral insight than Peter does. The bishops may say to the pope, “This is not a good idea. Maybe you should not do this.” He responds as he has, “This has to be done.” That’s the end of the conversation. From that point forward, any bishop who says, “This does not have to be done” is not in communion with the pope on this point. He may be in communion on everything else, including the color of water. This would be enough for a pope to discipline a bishop, if he chooses to do so, which rarely happens. Our modern popes are truly saintly men. They don’t go around punishing people. They try to reign them in with persuasion.

 

[JReducation]

Let’s look at the Friars. This is our motherhouse, the crib of the Francisan order. The friars are in a very unique position, different from Paul. Paul was a secular man. He was not a consecrated man. Most bishops are secular men. The entire laity is secular. The secular Catholic owes the Pope obedience, simply because he’s pope, unless he orders you to do something that the Church says is a sin. We’ve already established that Pope Benedict said this must be done; therefore, it can’t be a sin.

However, the friars have a vow of obedience, which secular men and women do not make. Paul never made such a vow either. If you disobey the pope on this, you’re culpable of disobedience and you should go to confession. Not a big deal. You get absolution, if you’re truly sorry and life goes on. If you’re a consecrated man, as are friars, this is a big deal. The friar is a man who promises that he will obey, like everyone else, but he puts his soul on the line. When he makes the vow, he is saying “I will never disobey as long as I live.”

If he’s truly sorry, God will forgive. The point is that the sin he commits is double. His has disobeyed and he has violated the covenant that he made with God and the Church. The covenant was never to disobey. If what the pope was asking the friars to do were truly sinful, Francis commands them not to obey. Since the pope has already said that this is not the case, they must comply and cooperate. They must host this event.

The little Buddha statue . . . the friar is not culpable of anything. The friar is not telling the Buddhist to worship the Buddha. The Buddhist is going to do it with or without his permission. The friar is simply being a gracious host, as commanded by Francis under obedience. He’s finding another place where this monk can put his little idol. The friar knows that if he does not give him a place, the man will find one and it may be another inappropriate spot. The greater good is to find one for him to ensure that it’s not inappropriate as was the first choice. I have no idea what that other place was. For all I know it could have been on one of the refectory tables. The point is that he is repairing a problem, not causing one. He’s not encouraging or teaching or leading a Buddhist in prayer.

Otherwise, Francis was a heretic too, because he prayed with Muslims, so did Mother Teresa. St. Francis Xavier prayed alongside Buddhists and used Paul’s little “trick” (observe quotation marks) with the unknown god statue. I guess every pagan culture has one, because I saw them in South America too.

Finally, let’s talk about the half-truth. The truth is that the God of Islam is the God of Israel and the God of Jesus. That is not a half-truth. The Muslim, the Christian and the Jew all pray to the same God. The one and only God.

The difference is that the Catholic is the only one that has the full understanding of God, as full as is possible for a human being. The Muslim, Jew and Protestant, understand some things, but miss other parts and misunderstand other parts.

This is not new. This has been held by the Church for a very long time, once the Church came to an understanding of Islamic theology. She realized that Allah, is YHWH, or simply God. This took a while for us to get, because of two reasons. The first was the hostility between Christians and Muslims. Christians didn’t want to even look at a Q’Uran. The second reason that it took so long was the isolation of Muslems. They did not make themselves available to answer the questions of Christians.

It was not until the friars went to Jerusalem and began to befriend them that they started to answer the Christian’s questions about their faith. This was like pulliing teeth, because there was so much mistrust.

By 1941, St. Maximilian Kolbe writes a letter back to Poland and says, “These people worship the same eternal God as we do. They need our help in understanding the whole truth and they need patience, because they have many deformations of the truth.” He goes on to explain that it is indeed the same God, but they don’t know God as well as Catholics do.

It’s the Franciscans, from about 1223 to the 1940s who study Islam carefully and finally get the whole picture. It’s after that, in the 1950s that the Church says, “Ohhhhhhhh, now we understand them.” This is why the Council made the statement that they do worship the same God.

Later, Bl. John Paul would write Crossing the Threshold of Hope where he points to the common elements between us and the major religions of the world and the deficiencies in those other religions. This has been a very long journey to reach this point where we can understand Islam and Islam can understand Christianity. Now the next step is to built enough trust to allow Christians to educate Muslims in order to do what St. Max said, unravel the distortions in their understanding. I hope this helps a little.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[GraceSofia]

Wouildn’t it be good if the Holy Father said at Assisi “You must all convert, my children, or risk damnation”, in a kindly, paternal way.

Well, then we wouldn’t have to worry about an Assissi IV.

 

[GraceSofia]

We don’t call people in to embarass them or to threaten them. This is not the way of St. Francis.

Exactly. Archbishop Christodoulos was so rude to Pope John Paul II when he visited Greece; I doubt that it made Catholics esteem Greek Orthodoxy more. That was a terrible way to behave, IMO. On the other hand, the Greek Orthodox STILL (in many cases) say hateful things about Catholics and think that Christodoulos made same some sort of triumph there.

 

[GraceSofia]

First, this is a pope who has never given the Church any reason not to trust him. Since his youth to this day, he has made significant contributions to the Church at every post he has ever held. He is more intelligent than most Catholics put together. He has a plan in mind that he is not sharing with all of us and he does not have to share with us. The Church does not owe us transparency. It’s a theocracy. We have to trust that a person like Pope Benedict, with a proven track record knows what he’s doing. This is not gurantee that he’s going to achieve the desired result. Even he does not know this. He only believes that this is worth trying and he knows why he believes this, but he has made it clear that he does not want to share it with us.

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 Assissi, did Pope John Paul II? If Br. JR or anybody has any quotes about what Pope JP II wrote/thought about Assiss relevant to this thread, I’d be interested. Thanks.

 

[baylee]

From the Papal Encyclical Mortalium animos, 1928:

9. These pan-Christians who turn their minds to uniting the churches seem, indeed, to pursue the noblest of ideas in promoting charity among all Christians: nevertheless how does it happen that this charity tends to injure faith? Everyone knows that John himself, the Apostle of love, who seems to reveal in his Gospel the secrets of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and who never ceased to impress on the memories of his followers the new commandment “Love one another,” altogether forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt version of Christ’s teaching: “If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you.”[18] For which reason, since charity is based on a complete and sincere faith, the disciples of Christ must be united principally by the bond of one faith. Who then can conceive a Christian Federation, the members of which retain each his own opinions and private judgment, even in matters which concern the object of faith, even though they be repugnant to the opinions of the rest? And in what manner, We ask, can men who follow contrary opinions, belong to one and the same Federation of the faithful? …How so great a variety of opinions can make the way clear to effect the unity of the Church We know not; that unity can only arise from one teaching authority, one law of belief and one faith of Christians. But We do know that from this it is an easy step to the neglect of religion or indifferentism and to modernism, as they call it. Those, who are unhappily infected with these errors, hold that dogmatic truth is not absolute but relative, that is, it agrees with the varying necessities of time and place and with the varying tendencies of the mind, since it is not contained in immutable revelation, but is capable of being accommodated to human life. Besides this, in connection with things which must be believed, it is nowise licit to use that distinction which some have seen fit to introduce between those articles of faith which are fundamental and those which are not fundamental, as they say, as if the former are to be accepted by all, while the latter may be left to the free assent of the faithful: for the supernatural virtue of faith has a formal cause, namely the authority of God revealing, and this is patient of no such distinction. For this reason it is that all who are truly Christ’s believe, for example, the Conception of the Mother of God without stain of original sin with the same faith as they believe the mystery of the August Trinity, and the Incarnation of our Lord just as they do the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, according to the sense in which it was defined by the Ecumenical Council of the Vatican. Are these truths not equally certain, or not equally to be believed, because the Church has solemnly sanctioned and defined them, some in one age and some in another, even in those times immediately before our own? Has not God revealed them all? For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained. But in the use of this extraordinary teaching authority no newly invented matter is brought in, nor is anything new added to the number of those truths which are at least implicitly contained in the deposit of Revelation, divinely handed down to the Church: only those which are made clear which perhaps may still seem obscure to some, or that which some have previously called into question is declared to be of faith.

10. So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it. During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: “The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly.”[20] The same holy Martyr with good reason marveled exceedingly that anyone could believe that “this unity in the Church which arises from a divine foundation, and which is knit together by heavenly sacraments, could be rent and torn asunder by the force of contrary wills.”[21] For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one,[22] compacted and fitly joined together,[23] it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.[24]

Sorry for the huge font. That is how it copied and pasted from the Vatican site.

 

[Blessed_be_God]

Thank you Br. JR, this conversation is certainly helping.

If you have the time, this is what still concerns me.

For the pope or anyone to be culpable of sin, three conditions must be met: it must be grave, there must be knowledge and there must be full consent of the will. This is where this event does not match up with the Borgia papacy and his concubine. In the Borgia case, what the pope did was condemned by scripture and Church. There was no doubt.
In this situation, the pope himself is telling us that it is not a sin.

The problem I see here is that scandal of sin is already well defined. If a person engages in activity that could lead to scandal, then there is sin involved.

If a person sleeps in the same room with an unmarried person of the opposite sex, if both are convinced that it is not a sin, is it no longer a sin?

This doesn’t mean they can’t sin. It means that they can’t call something a good when in fact it’s a sin. Otherwise, the man is not the pope. We now have two popes calling this gathering a good and not a sin.

This is a bit confusing. There have been Pope’s in the past who would have condemned such behavior. Take Moratalium Animos by Pope Pius XI says the following :- (Please note, no copyright infringement intended)

A similar object is aimed at by some, in those matters which concern the New Law promulgated by Christ our Lord. For since they hold it for certain that men destitute of all religious sense are very rarely to be found, they seem to have founded on that belief a hope that the nations, although they differ among themselves in certain religious matters, will without much difficulty come to agree as brethren in professing certain doctrines, which form as it were a common basis of the spiritual life. For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule.

Couldn’t one say that the matter was decided back then?

The case between Paul and Peter was not that Peter was sinning. It was that Peter was holding on to an old law, which excluded the Gentiles. The law in itself was not a sinful law. The issue was a matter of discipline.

It certainly was a matter of discipline as well but you don’t think that St. Peter was causing confusion to the converted Pagans i.e. scandal? He was holding on to an old Law that no longer applied.

Once he has answered and said that this is something that must be done, as he has said, then the Church owes him assent. This is not an assent of faith, because this is not a dogma that he’s putting on the table. He’s exercising his authority as Peter. We cannot deny Peter our assent, especially when Peter says, “You’re mistaken. It’s not a sin.” If our only reason to deny assent is that this is a sin, but he has already said, “No it’s not.” Then who’s right? The pope or me? We can’t both be right and there can only be one pope. Only the pope is gifted with infallibility in moral matters. Therefore, we don’t have a leg to stand on when we say, “No we will not follow directions and support him.” That is simple defiance.

But is the above true? Are we called to give assent to all Papal decisions? Is it binding?

Because think about the case of Pope Honorius. He sent out a letter containing error somewhat publicly. But it is considered not binding by us Catholics to this day. We hold that his answer was not decisive because he did not speak by invoking the authority of Peter.

Can’t one think the same with this act?

Bishops can disagree with the prudence of something. In order to remain in communion with Peter, they may not disobey, defy, or claim to have a greater moral insight than Peter does.

Now I am not saying that current Bishops get themselves excommunicated. But history does tell us of cases where those with the orthodox faith did have to oppose and even get themselves banished.

Bishops like Hilary of Poitiers and Eusebius of Vercellae were banished during the Arian heresy for strongly defending the orthodox faith as was promoted by teachings before.

So it also seems to indicate that at times the church members were in error such that some had to oppose it at risk of banishment.

 

[Blessed_be_God]

It’s the Franciscans, from about 1223 to the 1940s who study Islam carefully and finally get the whole picture. It’s after that, in the 1950s that the Church says, “Ohhhhhhhh, now we understand them.” This is why the Council made the statement that they do worship the same God.

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?

 

[baylee]

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?

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?

 

[baylee]

This is a bit confusing. There have been Pope’s in the past who would have condemned such behavior. Take Moratalium Animos by Pope Pius XI says the following :- (Please note, no copyright infringement intended)

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.

 

[Blessed_be_God]

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?

I think the claim has not been that Islam is from the same God though. It has been more along the lines of Islam worships the same one God.

But I think your concern is valid. In one sense, this is a very inaccurate statement unless one adds a qualifier that it is incomplete, and contains errors. Without such a qualifier, a honest member of Islam would certainly think that their religion is also as true as Christianity.

To make the defense that the church could maybe clarify these issues somewhere less public or at a different event or book is also not valid. The church members can’t simply give one impression here and another impression at another place. That would also cause confusion and lead faithful to scandal.

In the end, Islam does contains errors attributed to God and in its moral teaching. Therefore it cannot simply be condoned. The argument made for making favorable claims toward Islam seems to be the same argument made for all religions i.e. “We have common ground”. But the problem is that we have common ground with every single Heresy. Every heresy was just a slight deviation from Orthodox Catholic teaching.

Heresy in the church was not encouraged but corrected. Our church fathers wrote books and books on how to reject the heresies.

But somehow, the current members of the church have decided that it is better to emphasize the common ground with even vastly different religions rather than correct them. This also seems to suggest to an observer that there might be no way of actually knowing which religion is true by using reason. Because if something can be shown by reason, and someone we love is doing something unreasonable, who wouldn’t resort to using reason to show them their error?

Moratalium Animos for an example warns us against these behavior specifically because it does lead to religious indifferentism and causes scandal for both Catholic and the other religious.