Traditionalist catholics and the assisi prayer meetings

[Balance]

I wonder what might happen if more of us good Catholics put more of our energies into loving and following Christ instead of defending and promoting “the best interests of Catholicism”…

By that I mean this: that it so often seems like some Catholics (many Catholics?) long not for Christ to rule their hearts, but for the Church to rule the Earth.

And let me say that that comment is directed at no-one in this thread, or in any of these forums. I don’t know any of you, not even, really, from what you write in your posts - so I’d be a fool to make too many assumptions about what you long for.

 

[Rykell]

UKcatholicGuy:

I certainly can’t condone judging someone’s interior motives, and I think if you take a look at my posts, you’ll see that I have not done so.** We can, and we should, however, judge actions**. And I see the actions that took place at Assisi and declare that they are harmful to the faith …

Let me ask you then, my brother, were you there? And if not, how did you come by this information in order to make such a judgment? Be honest, which website? Or was it an unbiased newspaper article? Or hearsay from someone “in the know?” Maybe a report from the Vatican?

 

[Jo_Benedict]

Note:

The temperature of the discussion needs to be ratcheted down a few degrees. Please review posts for tone and content before clicking the “Submit” button. It is possible to discuss the topic in a spirited fashion without making personal comments.

 

[UKcatholicGuy]

I wonder what might happen if more of us good Catholics put more of our energies into loving and following Christ instead of defending and promoting “the best interests of Catholicism”…

I fail to see the distinction.

it so often seems like some Catholics (many Catholics?) long not for Christ to rule their hearts, but for the Church to rule the Earth.

Perhaps they long for Christ to rule the hearts of all men, which would be greatly helped by the Church ruling all lands.

 

[UKcatholicGuy]

Let me ask you then, my brother, were you there? And if not, how did you come by this information in order to make such a judgment? Be honest, which website? Or was it an unbiased newspaper article? Or hearsay from someone “in the know?” Maybe a report from the Vatican?

I was not there. I know about it from media reports, both secular and Catholic. I’m not even mentioning specifics that did or did not take place at Assisi. I’m speaking of the Assisi meeting itself-- that is, the decision by John Paul II to call together members of any and all religions to pray together in the same town for world peace. This is absolute fact. And it is this fact that I am saying I do not think was a wise move. Surely I’m entitled to say at least that much? Catholic Answer’s own “This Rock” magazine has a great article written by a priest which is highly critical of the Assisi events and declares that they went well beyond the call for ecumenism at Vatican II. You can read it by going to CA main site and searching the terms “Whill John Paul be the Great?”

 

[Balance]

It’s a scandal in itself that Buddhists were invited to practice their false religion in a Catholic Church, in the presence of the True God. What an offense to Our Lord! Perhaps the individual Buddhists are not to blame if they acted out of sincere ignorance. However, those Catholics who organized the event surely are responsible in a major way for any and all blasphemies that occurred.

Again, the choice of language is interesting. Were Buddhists “invited to practice their false religion in a Catholic Church” or were they invited to join with other men and women of faith to pray for peace, the Church recognising in the Buddhist faith an ongoing search for the same God (CCC 843) that she worships?

I’m not sure that the Lord would be offended by Buddhists dancing in his presence. (I might be wrong.) This reminds me of a time when I was with a youth group in a church and some of the kids were acting up a bit - being a bit rowdy, a bit less than reverent, as kids sometimes are - and somebody else (with, if my memory serves me right, a sour face and hard eyes) took exception to that, hissing at them to be quiet because they were in a church. This gets to the heart of much Catholic teaching - the Church says, “Here’s the ideal (whatever it is: behaviour in a church, liturgy, doctrine), here’s what’s best - and you will find Christ more easily, and grow in relationship with him more deeply, and you will find true peace, freedom and happiness if you live this wholeheartedly - and as you do strive, and fail, and try again, God is with you and will always be.” So yes, it would have been more ideal if the kids were, in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament, conscious of the presence of Christ, and were able to pray, and be with him. Fact is, they were baby Christians, just starting out on the long journey of following Christ and I wonder if Christ was, in fact, anything but offended by their hijinks - I’d say he was delighted that they were there with him.

This doesn’t mean that we throw our churches open willy-nilly to all and sundry and let them do whatever they want. It just means that we should perhaps be a little less hasty to say what offends Christ.

“Perhaps the individual Buddhists are not to blame” - I don’t understand why you speak of “blame” and start apportioning it. I don’t understand why you would put yourself in that position, take that responsibility for yourself.

“However, those Catholics who organized the event surely are responsible in a major way for any and all blasphemies that occurred.” - I don’t know. Yes, anyone organising such a meeting, a meeting which could present certain awkwardnesses or difficulties, would need to be careful they did a good job. But responsible for any blasphemies? Blasphemy is a deliberate choice to defame God or something holy - would your average Buddhist (or member of any other religion at the meeting) have the means to be able to do this? I would say not - as in my example above, kids, or Buddhists, might not know much about the Real Presence and might not be culpable for any perceived blasphemy.

So we don’t just sit back and say, “Oh well, they didn’t know, God bless 'em, that’s OK” - I’m not saying that. I’m saying that our response should be, not aggrieved declarations of blasphemy, assumptions about the character or motivations of dead popes or accusations, but less declamatory statements about things we probably don’t actually know much about, and more authentic living, in our daily lives, of this faith in Christ, brought to us by his Church, that we hold so dear.

(I’ll add, again, a disclaimer - this is not directed at any person or persons in this thread or any thread. It’s just a general thinking-out-loud.)

That’s my final thought - if only we lived our faith with more prayer, more active charity, more sacrifice, more giving, more kindness, gentleness and peace, more truth and courage, if only we challenged that smugness (“I’m OK, I’m a member of the only true religion”) that we see in ourselves and our fellow Catholics, if only people saw Christ in us as we went about our daily lives, as we lived out our vocation as laymen and women with all the same qualities and virtues we admire in the Saints, if only we loved as Christ loves us - that would be true apologetics, and true faith, our lives would be transformed and through us people would encounter the Christ who the organisers of the meeting at Assissi attempted to share.

 

[Balance]

Rykell,

I And I see the actions that took place at Assisi and declare that they are harmful to the faith because they send a false message.

I’m speaking of the Assisi meeting itself-- that is, the decision by John Paul II to call together members of any and all religions to pray together in the same town for world peace. This is absolute fact. And it is this fact that I am saying I do not think was a wise move. Surely I’m entitled to say at least that much?

See, this is what I’m saying about language - in one post, you say, “I declare that the actions that took place at Assisi were harmful to the faith… a false message” (my paraphrase) and in another you say “I do not think it was a wise move.”

The first is a strident soapbox condemnation of “modernist error,” while the second is less strident, less declamatory: “I do not think…”
The first shuts down dialogue, the second invites it.
The first, in the age we live in, is a turn-off. The second is, perhaps, much more appropriate, much more of a wise move.

 

[Balance]

I wonder what might happen if more of us good Catholics put more of our energies into loving and following Christ instead of defending and promoting “the best interests of Catholicism”…

I fail to see the distinction.

I see a distinction, mainly because I know what following Christ means but I’m not sure what “the best interests of Catholicism” are. Could you tell me what you mean by that?

By that I mean this: that it so often seems like some Catholics (many Catholics?) long not for Christ to rule their hearts, but for the Church to rule the Earth.

Perhaps they long for Christ to rule the hearts of all men, which would be greatly helped by the Church ruling all lands.

Oh dear. The Church’s mission is to lead people to Christ and help them grow in relationship with him. It is not, and never has been, to “rule all lands.”

 

[Crusade_Guy]

I do not believe that JPII’s ecumenical efforts were simply directed at world peace. That is not what he said in his encyclical “Ut Unum Sint.” As the title implies, he promoted ecumenism because of Our Lord’s prayer that all His disciples be united. Why not take the Pope at his word?

Edwin

Because Christ’s true disciples ARE united. Do you think Jesus’ prayer in John 17 was unfulfilled? The followers of Christ are united in the unity of the one, Catholic Church. The Church of Jesus Christ is not divided among various sects…this is more in line with the false Protestant view of some invisible, non-institutional, spiritual church in which every Christian in every sect belongs, or the Anglican “branch theory” which has been condemned by several Popes, most recently by Pius XII in his encyclical “Mystici Corporis.” It would do many of you well to read this encyclical which is still authoritative. If we want all who claim to believe in Christ Jesus to be united as one, we need only urge them to join the Catholic Church, rather than waste our time in “dialogue” and fruitless ecumenical endeavors, which only obscure the truth and actually lead people farther away from the Church.

 

[Crusade_Guy]

Again, the choice of language is interesting. Were Buddhists “invited to practice their false religion in a Catholic Church” or were they invited to join with other men and women of faith to pray for peace, the Church recognising in the Buddhist faith an ongoing search for the same God (CCC 843) that she worships?

The inspired Psalmist, as well as St. Francis Xavier, said that all of the gods of the pagans are demons and therefore their worship is actually abhorrent to the one true God. Why would John Paul II invite people to actually commit a sin contrary to natural law by praying to false idols rather than to the one true God?

 

[Balance]

The inspired Psalmist, as well as St. Francis Xavier, said that all of the gods of the pagans are demons and therefore their worship is actually abhorrent to the one true God. Why would John Paul II invite people to actually commit a sin contrary to natural law by praying to false idols rather than to the one true God?

Why would he indeed? Did he indeed?
I’m not sure I understand your post. Did John Paul II invite people to commit a sin? That’s a big call. Are you in a position to give an answer on that? If you’re basing such a question on quotes about pagans’ gods being demons, I’m not sure how that applies to this thread.

BTW, and you know this I’m sure, giving sources for quotes or references/citations used in discussion is always important.

Here’re some paragraphs from the Catechism which may be instructive, at least for a Catholic reading them with eyes of faith.

The Church and non-Christians

839 "Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways."325

The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People,326 "the first to hear the Word of God."327 The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God’s revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews “belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ”,328 "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."329

840 And when one considers the future, God’s People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day."330

842 The Church’s bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race:

All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city. . .331

843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."332

845 To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son’s Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is “the world reconciled.” She is that bark which “in the full sail of the Lord’s cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world.” According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah’s ark, which alone saves from the flood.334

39 In defending the ability of human reason to know God, the Church is expressing her confidence in the possibility of speaking about him to all men and with all men, and therefore of dialogue with other religions, with philosophy and science, as well as with unbelievers and atheists.

/////

Did John Paul II “invite people to commit a sin … by praying to false idols” or did he recognise that in the prayer of their respective religions was a genuine searching, “among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved.”

 

[historyb]

How should we view this? Well it seems that M.H. of TIA has managed to plant a seed in the mind of another tradtionist, yet again. You may view it as calumnous hogwash deliberately planted to denigrate the papacy and the good name of our beloved Pope John Paul II.

The replies some have posted above are also designed to further demean this Pontiff, ecumenism, and are written dognatically as though these people were in possession of absolute truth. Nonsense, and it truly gives the honest traditionist a bad name here. If any doubt the veracity of this slander, say so, and I will provide the articles of many newspapers which, though impartial, at least reported the facts in a better light than M.H. et al.

I am really disgusted with this propaganda and I trust you will view it as such.

The pontiff did more to hurt Catholicism at that one time than any other time. Most conservative Protestant saw it and said they knew catholicism had nothing to do with Christianity.

A lot of catholics love that he did this. Not this one, I consider it the worse thing he could have done and there was a lot of damage done because of it. That’s MHO

 

[UKcatholicGuy]

I see a distinction, mainly because I know what following Christ means but I’m not sure what “the best interests of Catholicism” are. Could you tell me what you mean by that?

I mean that Christ is inseparably united to His Mystical Body, the Catholic Church. So, when one is helping the Church, he is helping Christ. When one is harming the Church, he is harming Christ.

Oh dear. The Church’s mission is to lead people to Christ and help them grow in relationship with him. It is not, and never has been, to “rule all lands.”

The Church’s mission as given Her by Our Lord is to “go out and make disciples of all nations.” Surely this is possible in a land ruled by a secular government. But it is even easier to make disciples when the Church rules a land as well. This was the practice of the Church for over 1,000 years. I do not mean that the Church should force conversions; not at all. I simply mean that, were the Church to rule a county, she would order society in such a way as to prepare the hearts of men to receive the Gospel more readily. Imagine if things like abortion, pornography, and vulgar music were non-existent? That would already make for a much more fertile ground into which to plant the seed of the Gospel.

 

[Balance]

I mean that Christ is inseparably united to His Mystical Body, the Catholic Church. So, when one is helping the Church, he is helping Christ. When one is harming the Church, he is harming Christ.

The Church’s mission as given Her by Our Lord is to “go out and make disciples of all nations.” Surely this is possible in a land ruled by a secular government. But it is even easier to make disciples when the Church rules a land as well. This was the practice of the Church for over 1,000 years. I do not mean that the Church should force conversions; not at all. I simply mean that, were the Church to rule a county, she would order society in such a way as to prepare the hearts of men to receive the Gospel more readily. Imagine if things like abortion, pornography, and vulgar music were non-existent? That would already make for a much more fertile ground into which to plant the seed of the Gospel.

This, I guess, it what I was talking about. Does it need to be said that 21st Century man will never let the Catholic Church “rule” him and his state? So if a person is longing for that to happen, I would say that his or her heart isn’t in the right place because they’re longing for something that is clearly unrealistic or unrealisable. Modern man (even modern Catholic man) doesn’t accept objective truth and may never again accept it like church and society did in the past. We need to acknowledge that and work out the best way to bring the Good News of Christ to the world, not yearn for yesterdays when “things were simpler.” The prayer meeting at Assisi was an attempt to evangelise - while it may have been a flawed and ill-advised attempt.

 

[Balance]

Imagine if things like abortion, pornography, and vulgar music were non-existent? That would already make for a much more fertile ground into which to plant the seed of the Gospel.

With all due respect, this is a pipe dream! Even if a Catholic State did exist, abortion, pornography and “vulgar music” (interesting that those three things are, for you, an unholy trio, to be grouped together) would not be “non-existent” but would be simply hidden and secret, driven underground.

We need to long not for an illusory Catholic Rule, a kind of modern holy Roman Empire, but for lay Catholics to wake up! When people see Catholics living heroic lives full of active love, hope, faith and courage they are curious; they are, often, stopped in their tracks. “You mean you actually believe that? And you live it?” You must have experienced this yourself.
Conversely, when people who don’t follow Christ experience Catholics who seem to want to rule them and their lives, they are anything but attracted to Christ and the Catholic Church.

 

[Balance]

I This was the practice of the Church for over 1,000 years. .

Was it “the practice of the Church” or actually simply an accident of history? Church and state were intertwined because that was “how things were”. That’s how it seems to me. To suggest it could ever happen again is, as I’ve said, simply unrealistic.

 

[Balance]

The pontiff did more to hurt Catholicism at that one time than any other time. Most conservative Protestant saw it and said they knew catholicism had nothing to do with Christianity.

A lot of catholics love that he did this. Not this one, I consider it the worse thing he could have done and there was a lot of damage done because of it. That’s MHO

Posts like this perplex me. !!

How exactly does a pontiff “hurt Catholicism”? What does that actually mean? What is this “Catholicism” that can be “hurt”?

“Most conservative Protestant” - again, perplexing. Who? To what are you referring?

I wonder if you could be a bit more specific - exactly what was the “damage done”?

 

[historyb]

Posts like this perplex me. !!

How exactly does a pontiff “hurt Catholicism”? What does that actually mean? What is this “Catholicism” that can be “hurt”?

“Most conservative Protestant” - again, perplexing. Who? To what are you referring?

I wonder if you could be a bit more specific - exactly what was the “damage done”?

By not presenting the Gospel message. When I was a Protestant we took this as confirmation that since the Pope didn’t share the news of Christ and let pagans do pagan things in the Church that Christianity truly did not reside there.

The damage was the scandal that it caused and by the fact that now to a whole host of people Catholicism just looks like another religion among many.

 

[palmas85]

Dear UK,

These are the statements which I find to be appalling for a Catholic to express about a most revered holy Pope. Are they “true?” Are they “charitable?” Are they “necessary?”

Negative.

Several newspapers reported the story, but good ole M.H. and other biased websites have distorted the truth and depicted the Pope in a very horrendous light — with an ulterior motive, I must say.

Give me a little time, and I will show the errors in this reporting. I ask you all, why do you believe this stuff so readily?

I was alive when it happened. I didn’y justread about it. At the time the entire event was hailed by the Vatican as a breakthrough in ecumenical and inter religious dialogue.

The Holy Father was a good man and a holy man and will probably be a saint one day.

But he was not perfect and the Church suffered in many areas under his watch.

 

[palmas85]

This is rather an opaque sentence on many levels. What exactly is “the best interest of Catholicism”?
What else did he do - “he did much” - that appeared “not to have [this] best interest … as a motivating factor”?

I don’t know much about this meeting at Assisi and think it would have been interesting to hear from John Paul II himself about what his aims and objectives were in organising it.

What i do know is that anytime anytime I hear people start saying “I heard…” this and that, an alarm goes off.
Let’s know that we know what we’re talking about before we start making allegations and accusations.

Should we be worried or disturbed about a creeping anti-John Paul II sentiment in these forums? If there is such sentiment, what does it mean?

Maybe people are finally opening their eyes to what really happened through those many years. All was not perfect in Rome by any means.