Traditionalist catholics and the assisi prayer meetings

[Rykell]

OP:

many traditionalist catholics feel scandelized by the prayer meetings

Could you elaborate a little bit? Which prayer meetings are you talking about … what was the actual year? Who are “many” tradtionalist catholics? A few members of your church group who brought up a conversation about it? It sounds a little bit like hearsay, to be honest.
Palmas:

Maybe ? … (a nebulous word) people are finally opening their eyes to what really happened through those many years.

Was this your answer to Balance’s question, to give another opaque comment? e.g.,
"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”?

How can one hold a fruitful discussion when the answers are fuzzy?

I was alive when it happened. I didn’t just read about it.

Also opaque. If you did not read about it, how did you learn of it? Second hand as hearsay? Was it televised? A book on it? References would help.

 

[maurin]

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.

:tiphat:

 

[historyb]

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.

[SIGN]agreed[/SIGN]

 

[sir_galahad]

What’s amazing in some ways is the cult that has grown up around John Paul the Great. I love our last Pontiff… even though he’s not canonized yet, I sometimes pray to him. But there’s this way of thinking amongst certain orthodox Catholics that any criticism of him, no matter how mild, is tantamount to denying papal infallibility. Popes are only human… it’s my understanding that, whilst they can’t err when officially speaking on faiths and morals, their every action and word isn’t revelation equal to the Gospel. Was the Assisi prayer meeting a good idea? I have no idea. That’s for God to judge, not a puny layman such as myself with no theological training. Undoubtedly the Pope had very good reasons for doing what he did. But there have been Popes before John Paul the Great and there will be Popes after him. He’s not the only Pontiff the Catholic Church has ever had and yet you’d never know that based on the almost fanatical adulation some people accord him.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

What’s amazing in some ways is the cult that has grown up around John Paul the Great. I love our last Pontiff… even though he’s not canonized yet, I sometimes pray to him. But there’s this way of thinking amongst certain orthodox Catholics that any criticism of him, no matter how mild, is tantamount to denying papal infallibility. Popes are only human… it’s my understanding that, whilst they can’t err when officially speaking on faiths and morals, their every action and word isn’t revelation equal to the Gospel. Was the Assisi prayer meeting a good idea? I have no idea. That’s for God to judge, not a puny layman such as myself with no theological training. Undoubtedly the Pope had very good reasons for doing what he did. But there have been Popes before John Paul the Great and there will be Popes after him. He’s not the only Pontiff the Catholic Church has ever had and yet you’d never know that based on the almost fanatical adulation some people accord him.

I would not identify as a traditionalist Catholic (the current pope says, and I agree, that “Catholic” is sufficient and it doesn’t need any kind of qualifier). I also deeply love and reverence the memory of the Servant of God John Paul the Great and I pray that I live to see him raised to the honors of the altar. But the Assissi event troubles me. If the old Holy Father had simply asked everyone round for a discussion on how religions could cooperate in building world peace and they’d all signed some kind of accord (if that sounds cynical, it’s because I’m generally cynical of that kind of thing), that
might be one thing (and it might have borne fruit, under the auspices of his heroic heart). But the prayer bit, the common worship, I dunno. These were not simply seperated brethren.

One thing I DO try to bear in mind when I’m troubled by matters such as this: I don’t bear the burden that the pope bears.

 

[Joysong]

Hi Jkirk,

Did you read something that caused this concern, or was it the conversations (written or oral) that you came across that were bothersome? Would it help to post the Vatican itinerary and speeches?

But the prayer bit, the common worship, I dunno. These were not simply seperated brethren.

There was no common worship. From the Program at the Holy See: Invitation by the Holy Father to go to the different places for prayer: Video

And here is the closing of a speech by Didi Talwalkar (Hinduism) which is rather lovely, IMO:

My divine brothers and sisters, from much above the station of life where I am, I dare appeal to humanity, from this august forum, in the blessed presence of His Holiness the Pope, to rise above insularity, to develop absolute selfless and unconditional love for God and his creation to overcome endemic crises. It is not a theoretical construct. We have shown in our own small way that it is possible to achieve a social order. In the cause of peace, let us not leave our inner resources untapped. Our dialogue, which celebrates the unity of different religious traditions, has not come a day earlier. From here we can move to a coalition of world’s religions to safeguard a shared future blessed by God.

All of the speeches are printed in both english and Italian. This would be the time they were together prior to separating for prayer. The anti-pope websites have completely distorted the visit to further their agenda.

 

[Cranch]

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.)…

I don’t know much about this meeting but I can tell you Buddhists do not believe in any god, let alone the One True God, paragraph 843 of the Catechism not withstanding.

buddhanet.net/ans73.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism

 

[Cranch]

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.)…

I don’t know much about this meeting but I can tell you Buddhists do not believe in any god, let alone the One True God, paragraph 843 of the Catechism not withstanding.

buddhanet.net/ans73.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism

 

[Balance]

I don’t know much about this meeting but I can tell you Buddhists do not believe in any god, let alone the One True God, paragraph 843 of the Catechism not withstanding.

buddhanet.net/ans73.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism

That’s true, at least as far as I understand Buddhism. But it’s neither here nor there really, in the context of this discussion. Nobody’s saying they do believe in any God. But in their seeking for “inner peace” or “Nirvana” or “transcendence,” they are actually seeking God, the same God we worship. That’s what paragraph 843 CCC means.
That’s what the Church recognises - Catholics don’t say, “Buddhists worship the same God we do,” we say, “Buddhists, in following the longing imprinted on their hearts for peace and love, seek, without knowing it, the same God we do” and it’s out task and privilege to share Christ with them in the knowledge that that longing will be met in him.

 

[Balance]

What’s amazing in some ways is the cult that has grown up around John Paul the Great. I love our last Pontiff… even though he’s not canonized yet, I sometimes pray to him. But there’s this way of thinking amongst certain orthodox Catholics that any criticism of him, no matter how mild, is tantamount to denying papal infallibility. Popes are only human… it’s my understanding that, whilst they can’t err when officially speaking on faiths and morals, their every action and word isn’t revelation equal to the Gospel. Was the Assisi prayer meeting a good idea? I have no idea. That’s for God to judge, not a puny layman such as myself with no theological training. Undoubtedly the Pope had very good reasons for doing what he did. But there have been Popes before John Paul the Great and there will be Popes after him. He’s not the only Pontiff the Catholic Church has ever had and yet you’d never know that based on the almost fanatical adulation some people accord him.

Yep, I agree, to a point. I don’t know if you’re including me amongst those “some people” but if you are, I’d point out that I’ve been arguing not against constructive criticism of some of John Paul II’s actions as such but against fuzzy, general statements like this:

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

Little snippets thrown out there with no explanation. What does that actually mean, “…the Church suffered in many areas under his watch”? Such a claim really needs to be explicated, otherwise its irresponsible, and even slanderous.

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

So “what really happened”? Good grief. Grassy knoll, anyone?

Of course all was not perfect in Rome (and doesn’t that sound nice and dramatic, nicely portentous). The Pope is human, not impeccable. The Church is made up of human beings who will make mistakes. Maybe the meeting at Assisi was flawed and ill-advised. How about just saying that, instead of making little comments that suggest inside information, hint at conspiracy theories, but are actually hollow?

[SIGN]agreed[/SIGN]

Too easy to post a little “agreed” sign. Work a bit harder, historyb. If you feel strongly, give us something with a little more substance than this.

 

[Balance]

I would not identify as a traditionalist Catholic (the current pope says, and I agree, that “Catholic” is sufficient and it doesn’t need any kind of qualifier).

I agree! I’ve thought this for a while. I’m always a little uneasy when I see such qualifiers. (I’m always happy to find out the Pope agrees with me too. ) Could you point me to a reference for this quote? I’d like to read around it.

I also deeply love and reverence the memory of the Servant of God John Paul the Great and I pray that I live to see him raised to the honors of the altar. But the Assissi event troubles me. If the old Holy Father had simply asked everyone round for a discussion on how religions could cooperate in building world peace and they’d all signed some kind of accord (if that sounds cynical, it’s because I’m generally cynical of that kind of thing), that
might be one thing (and it might have borne fruit, under the auspices of his heroic heart). But the prayer bit, the common worship, I dunno. These were not simply seperated brethren.

This is a more thoughtful comment than some of the others I’ve pointed out. Gives us more to go on, is more thought-provoking, and humble. Thanks.

 

[sir_galahad]

Yep, I agree, to a point. I don’t know if you’re including me amongst those “some people” but if you are, I’d point out that I’ve been arguing not against constructive criticism of some of John Paul II’s actions as such but against fuzzy, general statements like this:

Little snippets thrown out there with no explanation. What does that actually mean, “…the Church suffered in many areas under his watch”? Such a claim really needs to be explicated, otherwise its irresponsible, and even slanderous.

So “what really happened”? Good grief. Grassy knoll, anyone?

Of course all was not perfect in Rome (and doesn’t that sound nice and dramatic, nicely portentous). The Pope is human, not impeccable. The Church is made up of human beings who will make mistakes. Maybe the meeting at Assisi was flawed and ill-advised. How about just saying that, instead of making little comments that suggest inside information, hint at conspiracy theories, but are actually hollow?

Too easy to post a little “agreed” sign. Work a bit harder, historyb. If you feel strongly, give us something with a little more substance than this.

No, I wasn’t including any people in particular with the phrase “some people.” Just a kneejerk reaction that a certain type of Catholic has when an action of John Paul the Great is criticized.

 

[Joysong]

Sir Galahad:

Just a kneejerk reaction that a certain type of Catholic has when an action of John Paul the Great is criticized.

Criticism would be appropriate if the OP had been assured that the information he presented was truthful. I note that the comments he heard assumed he did something worthy of apostacy, yet not a shred of proof was cited anywhere in the responses that followed, and these continued to put John Paul in a questionable light. “Balance” was correct that it may be slander.
OP:

many traditionalist catholics feel scandalized by the prayer meetings that john paul II hosted at assisi thinking that it promoted esteem for false religions. some even say that what happened there should be considered apostacy and cite popes such as pius XI who supposedly condemmed interfaith meetings for unity and peace.

I am grateful the OP was asking our help to clarify these insinuations, for I believe he was misinformed. He may now be the instrument to deliver his friends from error.

 

[historyb]

Too easy to post a little “agreed” sign. Work a bit harder, historyb. If you feel strongly, give us something with a little more substance than this.

And you would be who exactly that I should bother with you? I’m not sure why you come to our forum any way. There’s other places on here

 

[JKirkLVNV]

And you would be who exactly that I should bother with you?

A human being created in the image of God, with a least the price-tag of the blood of Christ to mark his worth? A fellow Catholic?

I’m less and less convinced that “traditional” is all that “traditional.”

 

[Jo_Benedict]

Note:

Since the personal comments have continued to be made, despite a warning placed earlier in the thread, this thread is now closed. Thanks to all who participated in the discussion.