The Most Holy Family Monastery

[MMLJ]

Upon browsing the web I came upon this website. The Most Holy Family Monastery has a large amount information mostly regarding Vatican II and anti-popes. This Monastery seems to be extreme. I read some of their referenced quotes/passages and verified them as authentic.

For example:

(1) ** Benedict XVI, speech apologizing for his comments on Islam, Sept. 2006:** “In the Muslim world, this quotation has unfortunately been taken as an expression of my personal position, thus arousing understandable indignation. I hope that the reader of my text can see immediately that this sentence does not express *my personal view of the Qur’an, for which I have the respect due to the holy book of a great religion.” (what???)
*

(2) “It is of course possible to read the Old Testament so that it is not directed toward Christ; it does not point quite unequivocally to Christ (“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, God and the World, 2000, p. 209) (what???)

(3)Benedict XVI, Address, Dec. 22, 2006: “My visit to Turkey afforded me the opportunity to show also publicly my respect for the Islamic Religion, a respect, moreover, which the Second Vatican Council (declaration Nostra Aetate #3) pointed out to us as an attitude that is only right.”

(4)Benedict XVI, Address, May 18, 2006: “Likewise, peace is rooted in respect for religious freedom, which is a fundamental and primordial aspect of the freedom of conscience of individuals and the freedom of peoples. It is important that everywhere in the world every person can belong to the religion of his choice and practice it freely without fear, for no one can base his life on the quest of material being alone.” (L’Osservatore Romano, May 24, 2006, p. 5.) (what???)

(5)VATICAN CITY, NOV. 30, 2005, Zenit News Report- Benedict XVI: “Whoever seeks peace and the good of the community with a pure conscience, and keeps alive the desire for the transcendent, will be saved even if he lacks biblical faith, says Benedict XVI.” (WHAT???)

(6)On May 14, 1999, John Paul II bowed to and kissed the Koran.???

(7)Benedict XVI, Introduction to Christianity, 2004, p. 349: “It now becomes clear that the real heart of faith in the resurrection does not consist at all in the idea of the restoration of bodies, to which we have reduced it in our thinking; such is the case even though this is the pictorial image used throughout the Bible.” (WHAT???)

What is going on here? If these are true then one need not be Catholic, be baptized, or even believe in the papacy. So what is the point of being Catholic if I can be saved another way? Can someone please tell me why are these quotes said so frequently, especially by a pope?

 

[Genesis315]

This is not a monastary, but two brothers (the Dimond Bros.). They wrench things out of context to support their very misguided agenda.

Here’s a good article which shows how this is done

lumengentleman.com/content.asp?id=179

And a follow-up:

lumengentleman.com/content.asp?id=182

Concerning the issue of being Catholic to be saved, this is necessary. But, if something is lacking something through no fault of the individual, that is, it the person is on good faith, it can be supplied by at least an implicit desire. Supernatural faith in God and a desire to follow all His commands and believe all His revelation would imply such a desire.

This is nothing new. This is from the Catechism of St. Pius X (1910):

29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation.

Likewise, treating people with respect is not wrong, but something necessary when evangelizing–any good missionary knows this. Likewise, civil liberty in terms of religion does not necessarily imply religious indifferentism–that is, that one religion is as good as another.

 

[DJim]

I would urge people to believe nothing asserted by those connected with this absolutely anti-Catholic and uncharitable organization and web site.

This group’s existence is completely contrary to the Catholic faith, and those involved truly need fervent prayers for conversion.

DJim

 

[chris_molter]

Yeah, those guys are pretty much “tinfoil hat” types. They don’t hold a candle to some of the “tinfoil mitre popes”, though!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucian_Pulvermacher

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bawden

 

[Church_Militant]

Yeah… these guys are all messed up. Go back and look at what the Church really teaches…not what they say that the pope supposedly said or meant.

Some anti-Catholics do the same thing in order to try to create an opening for their proselytizing.

 

[GerardP]

When everyone is done ridiculing them, don’t forget to pray for them.

 

[MMLJ]

This is not a monastary, but two brothers (the Dimond Bros.).

Concerning the issue of being Catholic to be saved, this is necessary. But, if something is lacking something through no fault of the individual, that is, it the person is on good faith, it can be supplied by at least an implicit desire. Supernatural faith in God and a desire to follow all His commands and believe all His revelation would imply such a desire.

This is nothing new. This is from the Catechism of St. Pius X (1910):

29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation.

Likewise, treating people with respect is not wrong, but something necessary when evangelizing–any good missionary knows this. Likewise, civil liberty in terms of religion does not necessarily imply religious indifferentism–that is, that one religion is as good as another.

I agree with you somewhat, but from what I have read from Benedict’s quotes, he says for example, that one need NOT believe in Christ the second person in the Trinity, to be saved. So in Judaism, who deny Christ is God, one will inherit salvation. I think that this Monastery is very extreme, but I do not think the Pope should be saying these things.
In Addition, I would like know why Pope JPII kissed the Koran, since in this book they deny Christ and the Trinity:

“They do blaspheme who say: God is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One God. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.” (Koran 5:73)

I would still like to know what really is going on here. No Pope should ever kiss the Koran or hold high respect for the religion of Islam. Would the great St. Peter kiss the Koran? I would like some more productive answers instead of just telling me not to believe the Most Holy Family Monastery. I may not believe them, but what about the cited quotes from Pope Benedict XVI and Pope John Paul II? Since they mostly cite quotes, are you telling me not to believe the cited quotes from these Popes?

 

[DJim]

I agree with you somewhat, but from what I have read from Benedict’s quotes, he says for example, that one need NOT believe in Christ the second person in the Trinity, to be saved.

Please don’t just tell us what you’ve “read”–produce a quote from Pope Benedict in which he asserts what you’ve asserted above. Then we can talk about it.

So in Judaism, who deny Christ is God, one will inherit salvation. I think that this Monastery is very extreme, but I do not think the Pope should be saying these things.

You have yet to demonstrate that the Pope did say that.

In Addition, I would like know why Pope JPII kissed the Koran, since in this book they deny Christ and the Trinity:

Why did Pope Peter refuse to eat with Gentiles, as reported in Galatians?

Even if one believes what Pope John Paul did with the Koran was inappropriate, you don’t go around saying he’s not really the Pope. St. Paul didn’t say Peter’s actions deprived him of his office.

I would still like to know what really is going on here. No Pope should ever kiss the Koran or hold high respect for the religion of Islam. Would the great St. Peter kiss the Koran?

No, he just hypocritically refused to eat with Gentiles after teaching that they should be numbered among Christians.

JP II did not hold “high respect” for Islam, in any case.

I would like some more productive answers instead of just telling me not to believe the Most Holy Family Monastery. I may not believe them, but what about the cited quotes from Pope Benedict XVI and Pope John Paul II? Since they mostly cite quotes, are you telling me not to believe the cited quotes from these Popes?

Cite the quotes, and then I’ll tell you…

DJim

 

[GerardP]

I would still like to know what really is going on here. No Pope should ever kiss the Koran or hold high respect for the religion of Islam. Would the great St. Peter kiss the Koran? I would like some more productive answers instead of just telling me not to believe the Most Holy Family Monastery. I may not believe them, but what about the cited quotes from Pope Benedict XVI and Pope John Paul II? Since they mostly cite quotes, are you telling me not to believe the cited quotes from these Popes?

This is one of circumstances where there are problems, serious problems in the Church.

The Dimond Bros are aware of the problems.

But there are serious problems with some of the conclusions the Dimond Bros. make.

But that doesn’t mean they are wrong on everything.

We are in a huge period of Apostasy in the Church. Places like EWTN soft pedal it immensely because ultimately they have to rely on not ruffling the feathers of powerful and corrupt Church leaders.

EWTN is not right on everything which is surprising to some.

Actually getting a good grasp on the Church situation today should require a major investment in time and research from a lot of sources.

You have to first learn the Catholic faith as it was traditionally taught. Mother Angelica once said she didn’t trust a book less than 50 years old.

Then you have to read direct sources: Liberal, Conservative and Traditional.

I’m currently reading a book by Card. Augustin Bea on Ecumenism. He would be strung up in a public square if he said the "arrogant’ things he said in the early 1960’s today. And the people stringing him up would be the liberals who tout him as their hero.

EWTN is utterly afraid of the Society of St. Pius X. Fr. Francis Mary last week preached against them in a most uncharitable manner and portrayed them falsely. The actual positions of a group like the SSPX won’t be allowed onto EWTN unedited.

The SSPX is not right on everything and also they are not wrong on a lot of what is going on.

Liberals outright lie about the Church but base it on half-truths and false premises.

They are wrong about everything.

I only know these things because I’ve personally encountered them all.

Beyond that pray. Live your devotions and hold on.

 

[Genesis315]

I agree with you somewhat, but from what I have read from Benedict’s quotes, he says for example, that one need NOT believe in Christ the second person in the Trinity, to be saved. So in Judaism, who deny Christ is God, one will inherit salvation. I think that this Monastery is very extreme, but I do not think the Pope should be saying these things.
In Addition, I would like know why Pope JPII kissed the Koran, since in this book they deny Christ and the Trinity:

“They do blaspheme who say: God is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One God. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.” (Koran 5:73)

I would still like to know what really is going on here. No Pope should ever kiss the Koran or hold high respect for the religion of Islam. Would the great St. Peter kiss the Koran? I would like some more productive answers instead of just telling me not to believe the Most Holy Family Monastery. I may not believe them, but what about the cited quotes from Pope Benedict XVI and Pope John Paul II? Since they mostly cite quotes, are you telling me not to believe the cited quotes from these Popes?

Read the articles I linked to and you will see how what he said is taken out of context. Does Pope Benedict hold that Jews do not need to convert or that it is not necessary to be Catholic? Of course not, what he was speaking about above is that someone is not absolutely automatically damned if they do not have an express belief in the person of Jesus Christ.

On other hand, here are some texts from him that say otherwise:

"In choosing the Twelve, introducing them into a communion of life with himself and involving them in his mission of proclaiming the Kingdom in words and works (cf. Mk 6: 7-13; Mt 10: 5-8; Lk 9: 1-6; 6: 13), Jesus wants to say that the definitive time has arrived in which to constitute the new People of God, the people of the 12 tribes, which now becomes a universal people, his Church.

Appeal for Israel

“With their very own existence, the Twelve - called from different backgrounds - become an appeal for all of Israel to convert and allow herself to be gathered into the new covenant, complete and perfect fulfilment of the ancient one.”
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20060315_en.html

"Indeed, the Church was easily his favourite subject. Cyprian distinguished between the* visible, *hierarchical *Church *and the *invisible *mystical *Church *but forcefully affirmed that the Church is one, founded on Peter.

"He never wearied of repeating that “if a man deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, does he think that he is in the Church?” (cf.* De unit. [On the unity of the Catholic Church], *4).

“Cyprian knew well that “outside the Church there is no salvation”, and said so in strong words (Epistles 4, 4 and 73, 21); and he knew that “no one can have God as Father who does not have the Church as mother” (*De unit., *6). An indispensable characteristic of the Church is unity, symbolized by Christ’s seamless garment (*ibid., *7): Cyprian said, this unity is founded on Peter (*ibid., *4), and its perfect fulfilment in the Eucharist (*Epistle *63, 13).”
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20070606_en.html

As for respect, you can respect someone’s sincerely held position without claiming it is true. That’s the only way you can come to change their mind. As St. Vincent de Paul said, “One must be ever on one’s guard not to embitter the heart, if one wishes to move the mind.”

What do you think will happen if you don’t treat someone’s beliefs with respect? Are they going to give your beliefs any respect? Of course not. And if they can’t respect your position, that of the Gospel, how can you ever expect them to receive it into their hearts?

Concerning the Koran kissing incident, there is a plethora of threads on it and I’d rather not have this one devolve into yet another.

 

[MMLJ]

Please don’t just tell us what you’ve “read”–produce a quote from Pope Benedict in which he asserts what you’ve asserted above. Then we can talk about it.

[So in Judaism, who deny Christ is God, one will inherit salvation. I think that this Monastery is very extreme, but I do not think the Pope should be saying these things.]

You have yet to demonstrate that the Pope did say that.
DJim

Thank you for your reply. Let me start with the first Proof:

Benedict XVI, Salt of the Earth, 1996, p. 24: “Q. But could **we not also accept that someone can be saved through a faith other than the Catholic? A. That’s a different question altogether. It is definitely possible for someone to receive from his religion directives that help him become a pure person, which also, if we want to use the word, help him please God and reach salvation. This is not at all excluded by what I said; on the contrary, this undoubtedly happens on a large scale.”

Benedict XVI, Salt of the Earth, 1996, p. 29**: “… in all religions there are men of interior purity who through their myths somehow touch the great mystery and find the right way of being human.”

Benedict XVI, Address, May 18, 2006: “Likewise, peace is rooted in respect for religious freedom, which is a fundamental and primordial aspect of the freedom of conscience of individuals and the freedom of peoples. It is important that everywhere in the world
every person can belong to the religion of his choice and practice it freely without fear, for no one can base his life on the quest of material being alone.”

HERE IT IS As you asked for:

Benedict XVI, Zenit News story, Sept. 5, 2000: “[W]e are in agreement that** a Jew, and this is true for believers of other religions, does not need to know or acknowledge Christ as**
the Son of God in order to be saved…

”Benedict XVI, God and the World, 2000, pages 150-151: “…their [the Jews] No to Christ
brings the Israelites into conflict with the subsequent acts of God, but at the same time we know that they are assured of the faithfulness of God. They are not excluded from salvation…”

Please elaborate especially here on this last point referring to freedom of religion. If choose to be Hindu/Muslim/Atheist/Buddhist/Pagan, than I would DO NOT NEED believe Christ the second in the Trinity is also GOD+.

Again I ask to All, What really is GOING ON here???

I await your clarification.

 

[Genesis315]

Thank you for your reply. Let me start with the first Proof:

Benedict XVI, Salt of the Earth, 1996, p. 24: “Q. But could we not also accept that someone can be saved through a faith other than the Catholic? A. That’s a different question altogether. It is definitely possible for someone to receive from his religion directives that help him become a pure person, which also, if we want to use the word, help him please God and reach salvation. This is not at all excluded by what I said; on the contrary, this undoubtedly happens on a large scale.”

The natural law is found in all men’s hearts. Many religions have been able discover these laws. If someone is inculpanly ignorant of the true faith, yet he has supernatural faith in God, that faith may manifest itself in the person following the natural law of God and living a life of purity of conscience and soul (this faith carries with it an implicit desire for baptism and to profess the true faith).

Benedict XVI, Salt of the Earth, 1996, p. 29: “… in all religions there are men of interior purity who through their myths somehow touch the great mystery and find the right way of being human.”

As St. Paul said in Acts 17 to the pagans with the altar the unknown God, they often worship the same God without knowing it. Again, they can find their human dignity in the stories which explain how humans should act, which all men can discover through natural means (we call this natural law).

Benedict XVI, Address, May 18, 2006: “Likewise, peace is rooted in respect for religious freedom, which is a fundamental and primordial aspect of the freedom of conscience of individuals and the freedom of peoples. It is important that everywhere in the world
every person can belong to the religion of his choice and practice it freely without fear, for no one can base his life on the quest of material being alone.”

He is talking here about the negative aspects of civil coercion in matters of religion and the duty of the state to foster an environment where man can come to God completely freely. He is not preaching religious indifferentism here. He is saying this is necessary to preserve civil peace in a place where there is a population of religious diversity.

Please elaborate especially here on this last point referring to freedom of religion. If choose to be Hindu/Muslim/Atheist/Buddhist/Pagan, than I DO NOT believe Christ the second in the Trinity is also GOD+.

I await your clarification.

See above.

Again, read the article I linked to in my first post and you will see how HFM takes things out of context and gives them twisted meanings.

 

[MMLJ]

The natural law is found in all men’s hearts. Many religions have been able discover these laws. If someone is inculpanly ignorant of the true faith, yet he has supernatural faith in God, that faith may manifest itself in the person following the natural law of God and living a life of purity of conscience and soul (this faith carries with it an implicit desire for baptism and to profess the true faith).

As St. Paul said in Acts 17 to the pagans with the altar the unknown God, they often worship the same God without knowing it. Again, they can find their human dignity in the stories which explain how humans should act, which all men can discover through natural means (we call this natural law).

He is talking here about the negative aspects of civil coercion in matters of religion and the duty of the state to foster an environment where man can come to God completely freely. He is not preaching religious indifferentism here. He is saying this is necessary to preserve civil peace in a place where there is a population of religious diversity.

See above.

Again, read the article I linked to in my first post and you will see how HFM takes things out of context and gives them twisted meanings.

I fully understand how you are perceiving these quotes, But he has repeated these, some on many occasion, and so my point is this, the Pope as you and I well know is very educated and should know exactly what he means when he says it. So, why should some such as yourself always being explaining his quotes and why can they not be understood directly by all. What I mean to say rather is, why should so many of his quotes in his books, addresses, etc., be always something other than what it reads? Can he not make it simple for the masses who are simpletons like myself? Why the ambiguity, the spin, the other meaning, etc., etc., etc. Why not say it as it is:

For Example Jesus the Christ is very simple and to the Point:

St John 14: 6 …I AM the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father but by me.

St John 11:25-26 …I AM the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in me, although he be dead, shall live: and everyone that liveth, and believeth in me, shall not die for ever.

Perfect, Clear, Concise and to the point. Understandable be all, and without confusion. According to Christ who is GOD+, this is no saying to practice the Pagan religions of Hinduism and the religion of Islam which is not Triune.

The Most Holy Family is extreme, no doubt, but they have valid arguments.

 

[MMLJ]

He is talking here about the negative aspects of civil coercion in matters of religion and the duty of the state to foster an environment where man can come to God completely freely. He is not preaching religious indifferentism here. He is saying this is necessary to preserve civil peace in a place where there is a population of religious diversity

Then why did he not say it this way, It seems logical and simple enough. But he did not say it this way, this is the way he chose:

Benedict XVI, Address, May 18, 2006: “Likewise, peace is rooted in respect for religious freedom, which is a fundamental and primordial aspect of the freedom of conscience of individuals and the freedom of peoples. It is important that everywhere in the world every person can belong to the religion of his choice and practice it freely without fear, for no one can base his life on the quest of material being alone.”

As St. Paul said in Acts 17 to the pagans with the altar the unknown God, they often worship the same God without knowing it. Again, they can find their human dignity in the stories which explain how humans should act, which all men can discover through natural means (we call this natural law).

But the dilemma here is that many of my Muslim and Hindu colleagues, know of Christ and do not believe he was anything other than a prophet. So yes people are inherently good in many aspects, yes, but know exactly what or who they worship. Case in point, I have family who are Hindu and many worship idols, animals (cow), etc. How is it that you are quoting St Paul and saying that cow worship is the worship of GOD? I say this because cow worship is Pagan. The worship of the Cow is Apostasy. BELIEVE ME THEY KNOW WHAT IT IS THEY WORSHIP.Since Benedict XVI says we are free to be of any religion, than as a Hindu and worship the Cow, will I be saved even if I know of the Christ? The Bible and I disagree with you.

Again I await clarification.

 

[Genesis315]

I fully understand how you are perceiving these quotes, But he has repeated these, some on many occasion, and so my point is this, the Pope as you and I well know is very educated and should know exactly what he means when he says it. So, why should some such as yourself always being explaining his quotes and why can they not be understood directly by all. What I mean to say rather is, why should so many of his quotes in his books, addresses, etc., be always something other than what it reads? Can he not make it simple for the masses who are simpletons like myself? Why the ambiguity, the spin, the other meaning, etc., etc., etc. Why not say it as it is:

For Example Jesus the Christ is very simple and to the Point:

St John 14: 6 …I AM the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father but by me.

St John 11:25-26 …I AM the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in me, although he be dead, shall live: and everyone that liveth, and believeth in me, shall not die for ever.

Perfect, Clear, Concise and to the point. Understandable be all, and without confusion. According to Christ who is GOD+, this is no saying to practice the Pagan religions of Hinduism and the religion of Islam which is not Triune.

The Most Holy Family is extreme, no doubt, but they have valid arguments.

He does explain them in way that is easy to understand, but MHF does not show you that part–they only give a little snippet. Again, read the articles I linked to above and you will see exactly what I am talking about.

He’s not intending to speak in sound bites but to address many issues in along treatise that is meant to be read in context, not as one isolated sentence.

Also, one does not need to always emphcize all aspects of a certain issue. For example, in those instances he may be emphasizing the possibility of salvation of all men. On the other hand, in those other quotes I provided he spoke of the necessity of all men to be in the Church, that is in communion with the chair of St. Peter. That’s not wrong.

 

[Church_Militant]

Scrupulosity really is a bad thing…

 

[Genesis315]

Then why did he not say it this way, It seems logical and simple enough. But he did not say it this way, this is the way he chose:

Benedict XVI, Address, May 18, 2006: “Likewise, peace is rooted in respect for religious freedom, which is a fundamental and primordial aspect of the freedom of conscience of individuals and the freedom of peoples. It is important that everywhere in the world every person can belong to the religion of his choice and practice it freely without fear, for no one can base his life on the quest of material being alone.”

Most people do not read with the hereneutic of suspicion that everything is heresy. No one thinks Benedict teaches religious indifferentism–just read how much flack he takes from the mainstream media and false ecumenists. Only people who’s minds have been poisoned by MHF and groups like them see heresy where there is none." As Bible says, “Nothing is clean to the unclean” and “the wicked man says treason everywhere when there is peace.”

But the dilemma here is that many of my Muslim and Hindu colleagues, know of Christ and do not believe he was anything other than a prophet. So yes people are inherently good in many aspects, yes, but know exactly what or who they worship. Case in point, I have family who are Hindu and many worship idols, animals (cow), etc. How is it that you are quoting St Paul and saying that cow worship is the worship of GOD? I say this because cow worship is Pagan. The worship of the Cow is Apostasy. BELIEVE ME THEY KNOW WHAT IT IS THEY WORSHIP.

That’s not for you to judge. Share the Gospel and pray, but we are forbidden from judging or condemning lest we judge and be condemned. Only God can know the secrets of the hearts of men.

Since Benedict XVI says we are free to be of any religion, than as a Hindu and worship the Cow, will I be saved even if I know of the Christ?

That’s not what he is saying. Civil freedom does not equal moral license or freedom from any obligation towards God.

The Bible and I disagree with you.

You and the Bible disagree with religious indifferentism and so do I. But that is not what is being promoted.

 

[GerardP]

Then why did he not say it this way, It seems logical and simple enough. But he did not say it this way, this is the way he chose:

Benedict XVI, Address, May 18, 2006: “Likewise, peace is rooted in respect for religious freedom, which is a fundamental and primordial aspect of the freedom of conscience of individuals and the freedom of peoples. It is important that everywhere in the world every person can belong to the religion of his choice and practice it freely without fear, for no one can base his life on the quest of material being alone.”

Ultimately, these are political social speeches and statements. They are not religious. Peace is rooted in Christ, not respect for religious freedom.

Conscience as G. K. Chesterton said should no more be trusted than your poor eyesight or rotting teeth.

This is followed by the contradictory phrase that no one can base his life on the quest of material being alone. Religious freedom by definition would require one to respect the lack of making a choice for religion.

None of these statements are of the Pope “Poping”. You are completely free to disagree with him on these.

In no way can he declare these statements in relation to the salvation of those outside the Church.

Popes talk about everything it seems. Not nearly enough on the truths of the Catholic Church.

But the dilemma here is that many of my Muslim and Hindu colleagues, know of Christ and do not believe he was anything other than a prophet. So yes people are inherently good in many aspects, yes, but know exactly what or who they worship. Case in point, I have family who are Hindu and many worship idols, animals (cow), etc. How is it that you are quoting St Paul and saying that cow worship is the worship of GOD? I say this because cow worship is Pagan. The worship of the Cow is Apostasy. BELIEVE ME THEY KNOW WHAT IT IS THEY WORSHIP.Since Benedict XVI says we are free to be of any religion, than as a Hindu and worship the Cow, will I be saved even if I know of the Christ? The Bible and I disagree with you.

 

[GerardP]

Most people do not read with the hereneutic of suspicion that everything is heresy. No one thinks Benedict teaches religious indifferentism–just read how much flack he takes from the mainstream media and false ecumenists. Only people who’s minds have been poisoned by MHF and groups like them see heresy where there is none." As Bible says, “Nothing is clean to the unclean” and “the wicked man says treason everywhere when there is peace.”

Pope St. Pius X warned people not to trust imprimaturs with certaintly because the infiltration in the Church was so bad.

Most people do not know the Catholic faith well enough to know that indifferentism is unCatholic.

While MHF monastery is wrong in many conclusions and they are sloppy in some of their work, there are others who are equally Polly-Annas on the other side that think that no Pope can say or do anything wrong.

St. Paul even warned of the possibility of error. “If WE or an Angel of Light speak a gospel different from that we have given you…”

That’s not for you to judge. Share the Gospel and pray, but we are forbidden from judging or condemning lest we judge and be condemned.

We are not forbidden from judging. We are forbidden from judging unjustly.

 

[Genesis315]

Ultimately, these are political social speeches and statements. They are not religious. Peace is rooted in Christ, not respect for religious freedom.

Conscience as G. K. Chesterton said should no more be trusted than your poor eyesight or rotting teeth.

This is followed by the contradictory phrase that no one can base his life on the quest of material being alone. Religious freedom by definition would require one to respect the lack of making a choice for religion.

You misunderstand what religious freedom and conscience are in these contexts.

It’s not contradictory because true freedom exists so that true duties can be fulfilled. Not fulfilling that duty would be an abuse of a necessary freedom, but not a purpose of that freedom. Religious freedom according to Catholic principles means the state must provide men with the necessary freedom to seek God freely, to freely come to Him in faith–otherwise, it is not true faith or conversion.

As for conscience, Chesterton is refuting the Liberal use of the term, not the Catholic one. Here, Cardinal Newman explains the Catholic meaning to someone who accused Popes Gregory XVI and B. Pius IX of changing Catholic teaching on the matter when the condemned “Liberty of Conscience.”

newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/section5.html

As Pius XI said, he will always condemn “liberty of conscience” but always defend “liberty of consciences.” There’s a difference.

Here is a good reading on what conscience is from Cardinal Newman as opposed to the false version: