What are we to make of Assisi?

[Barbkw]

What does any of this stuff about female bishops have to do with Assisi? These religious meetings in Italy are more about Catholic ~ Magisterial Protestant relations. Ecumenism of the sort that gives priests the go-ahead to light candles before Buddhist statues is dangerous ecumenism. We must find out if that is really what’s going on at Assisi events.

Lighting a candle before a Buddhist statue is the least of the problems the Church faces communicating with other religions and denominations.

Every protestant denomination is different in what is allowable moral behavior and what is not.

The Catholic Church can not turn a blind eye in relationships with other Christian denominations to the changing of Scripture, to the denial of Apostolic Tradition and to human actions that have always been considered immoral (homosexual acts and abortion). Then, add to that, the ordination of women and same sex marriage.

 

[archangel04]

Tradition of the Church all the way back to Christ teaches conversation out of charity. This ecumenism we have today is not out of charity but a compromise of our faith. In part I do blame some Bishops on the false ecumenism. Their first priority is to protect the faithful from the poison of evil, but how can they do this when they allow others who believe contrary to Church Tradition. Many faithful are on the fence when it comes to believing in the Church why then do we add more confusion by allowing false ecumenism? It seems in the eyes of the world that the Church is compromising her teachings and trying to make herself look “politically correct”, this is not ecumenism out of charity.

I wonder, would Muslims allow a priest to celebrate Mass in a mosque? Would protestants allow us to say the Rosary in one their buildings of worship?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Tradition of the Church all the way back to Christ teaches conversation out of charity. This ecumenism we have today is not out of charity but a compromise of our faith. In part I do blame some Bishops on the false ecumenism. Their first priority is to protect the faithful from the poison of evil, but how can they do this when they allow others who believe contrary to Church Tradition. Many faithful are on the fence when it comes to believing in the Church why then do we add more confusion by allowing false ecumenism? It seems in the eyes of the world that the Church is compromising her teachings and trying to make herself look “politically correct”, this is not ecumenism out of charity.

I’m wondering a bit here, how the Apostles and early Christians handled the pagan gentiles. Isn’t adopting the pagan customs and replacing the center of it from pagand gods to Christ similar to what is happening here today?

I wonder, would Muslims allow a priest to celebrate Mass in a mosque? Would protestants allow us to say the Rosary in one their buildings of worship?

We should be better than them. We should never base what we do or do not do on what they would do or not do.

 

[white_sheep]

If I may say, I think you need to distinguish between ecumenism and conversion.

If you don’t mind I’d prefer if you did. I’m not terribly well versed in the debate.

 

[pnewton]

The GLBT news blog “Bent Alaska” reported that the service was finally cancelled at that Catholic Church and moved to a Methodist building.

Thank you for playing Paul Harvey and telling the rest of the story.

I don’t see where many bishops compromise belief in the name of ecumenism. No doubt it does happen, but it seems more often tonight there is judgement of guilt by association. Association is an essential part of conversion. You can not have conversion if you never have contact.

 

[archangel04]

I’m wondering a bit here, how the Apostles and early Christians handled the pagan gentiles. Isn’t adopting the pagan customs and replacing the center of it from pagand gods to Christ similar to what is happening here today?

We should be better than them. We should never base what we do or do not do on what they would do or not do.

True, but that’s not what’s happening is it? Is there mass conversions to the faith? No
Are Catholic much more confused today than the last 50 years? Yes they are so why are we adding much more confusion? In the middle east and other Muslim countries we keep hearing in the news of Catholic churches being destroyed by Muslims. Christians being sent to jail or killed in those countries. Instead of false ecumenism we need a reform and a Pentecost, not on the world but in our Church. So that the world no longer sees the Church of Christ as some other institution, but instead as the beacon of light on the highest mountain, and her faithful as the salt of the earth.

 

[testamentum]

Catholics and other peeps,

I am concerned about the meetings at Assisi and altogether any ecumenism. I have no problem proclaiming the Truth of the Faith but to me this has not been the case so as to not “offend” people. I don’t see how any of the modern developments since the 60s really help the Church or for that matter provided clearer teaching. What are we to make of Assisi and ecumenism in light of Pope Pius XI’s encyclical Mortalium Animos, On Christian Unity.

It can be found here:
[papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11MORTA.HTM](http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11MORTA.HTM)

Doesn’t the Pope’s warning in this encyclical shake the Second Vatican Council and recent actions of Pope Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI?

For the record, I agree much more with Pope Pius XI.

I`m with you on this one and I personally do not like what went on at Assisi,this blog says it for me, vitwilderness.blogspot.com/2007/06/false-ecumenism.html

 

[Barbkw]

Association is an essential part of conversion. You can not have conversion if you never have contact.

I agree, but ecumenism needs to done by mature Catholics, who would not be swayed or affected by the belief structures of other denominations or religions that they come into contact with.

They are the Catholics who are able to speak Truth with love.

Ecumenism can have disasterous effects on immature and weak Catholics.

People either seek the religion that provides the greater Truth or they seek the truth that suits them.

 

[ConstantineTG]

True, but that’s not what’s happening is it? Is there mass conversions to the faith? No
Are Catholic much more confused today than the last 50 years? Yes they are so why are we adding much more confusion? In the middle east and other Muslim countries we keep hearing in the news of Catholic churches being destroyed by Muslims. Christians being sent to jail or killed in those countries. Instead of false ecumenism we need a reform and a Pentecost, not on the world but in our Church. So that the world no longer sees the Church of Christ as some other institution, but instead as the beacon of light on the highest mountain, and her faithful as the salt of the earth.

I’d have to challenge that and ask for cold hard facts. Are Catholics worse today than they were 100, 200, 300 years ago? Sometimes we think our situation today is worse but the reality of it likely is that its closer to being just the same. Otherwise, there wouldn’t have been heresies and schismatics and the Reformation and even the Great Schism in the last 2000 years of the Church.

And Christians were killed and persecuted from day 1. Whats new about it? Many died in the hands of Romans long before Mohammed was born.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I agree, but ecumenism needs to done by mature Catholics, who would not be swayed or affected by the belief structures of other denominations or religions that they come into contact with.

They are the Catholics who are able to speak Truth with love.

Ecumenism can have disasterous effects on immature and weak Catholics.

People either seek the religion that provides the greater Truth or they seek the truth that suits them.

Perhaps it is already being done by the mature Catholics. Its the bystanders who make silly comments are the ones who are not mature enough. I think we lack trust in the chosen ones (ie called to be ordained) that we think we can do a better job than they do.

 

[Barbkw]

I am “cherry picking” here, but these paragraphs do speak toward the types of Catholics (mature, unfaithful and the weak).

And again note, the decree on ecumenism was written in 1964 - (I was 4 years old.)

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

November 1964 - DECREE ON ECUMENISM

"Catholics, in their ecumenical work, must assuredly be concerned for their separated brethren, praying for them, keeping them informed about the Church, making the first approaches toward them.

But their primary duty is to make a careful and honest appraisal of whatever needs to be done or renewed in the Catholic household itself, in order that its life may bear witness more clearly and faithfully to the teachings and institutions which have come to it from Christ through the Apostles.

For although the Catholic Church has been endowed with all divinely revealed truth and with all means of grace, yet its members fail to live by them with all the fervor that they should, so that the radiance of the Church’s image is less clear in the eyes of our separated brethren and of the world at large, and the growth of God’s kingdom is delayed.

All Catholics must therefore aim at Christian perfection(24) and, each according to his station, play his part that the Church may daily be more purified and renewed. For the Church must bear in her own body the humility and dying of Jesus,(25) against the day when Christ will present her to Himself in all her glory without spot or wrinkle.(26)

All in the Church must preserve unity in essentials. But let all, according to the gifts they have received enjoy a proper freedom, in their various forms of spiritual life and discipline, in their different liturgical rites, and even in their theological elaborations of revealed truth. In all things let charity prevail. If they are true to this course of action, they will be giving ever better expression to the authentic catholicity and apostolicity of the Church."

 

[archangel04]

I’d have to challenge that and ask for cold hard facts. Are Catholics worse today than they were 100, 200, 300 years ago? Sometimes we think our situation today is worse but the reality of it likely is that its closer to being just the same. Otherwise, there wouldn’t have been heresies and schismatics and the Reformation and even the Great Schism in the last 2000 years of the Church.

And Christians were killed and persecuted from day 1. Whats new about it? Many died in the hands of Romans long before Mohammed was born.

I didn’t say we are worst off today than 100 or 300 years ago stop putting words in my mouth. Recent polls taken (I don’t have link to them) show that many Catholics don’t ever know much about their faith and in fact only remain Catholic for other reasons other than faith. Of course there have been much worst times in Church history this is especially true in the first 300 years of the Church. What I am saying is that just like every age and generations there are problems and just like before Saints have risen to the call of duty, no pun intended, and brought about much conversion not confusion. Ecumenism is part of our Church, but it’s purpose is to bring conversion to the Faith, not confusion amongst the faithful.

 

[ProVobis]

Thank you for playing Paul Harvey and telling the rest of the story.

Association is an essential part of conversion. You can not have conversion if you never have contact.

That will be the next iPOD program.

 

[rben20]

First, you link is broken.

Here it is fixed.
…

I have printed both out and will read them over the next couple of days and let you what I think. That is if you care what I think.

Thank you brother and of course I care.

Apparently there is true ecumenism and false ecumenism according to others who have posted…what’s the difference might I add? From what I can tell from Assisi, I believe it’s a mistake. We are to gather together in order to pray? Pray to who or what? Hindus won’t pray to the Trinity. Their concept of God is not even similar to the Jewish, Muslim, and Christian faiths. I think this kind of meddling is wrong and sends all kinds of bad signals to the world. In light of Pope Pius XI’s writing, it looks as he would put down these actions. What’s worse is that JP II and Bededict XVI continue to carry on these meetings.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I didn’t say we are worst off today than 100 or 300 years ago stop putting words in my mouth. Recent polls taken (I don’t have link to them) show that many Catholics don’t ever know much about their faith and in fact only remain Catholic for other reasons other than faith. Of course there have been much worst times in Church history this is especially true in the first 300 years of the Church. What I am saying is that just like every age and generations there are problems and just like before Saints have risen to the call of duty, no pun intended, and brought about much conversion not confusion. Ecumenism is part of our Church, but it’s purpose is to bring conversion to the Faith, not confusion amongst the faithful.

Again, how better catechized are Catholics in the past than today? Do you think every Catholic in the past believes in the Real Presence? And with the lack of other “options”, don’t you think many stay Catholic in the past because they can’t be anything else?

I didn’t put words in your mouth. You said “Are Catholic much more confused today than the last 50 years? Yes”. So I gave an example of the entire 2000 history before Vatican II. There were many probelms in the Church back then as it is today. There were many heresies and schisms. Why do we think we have it worse today than it was in the past? Aren’t Catholics just as confused during the time Arianism was taught falsely by Arius?

 

[At_Trent]

Catholics and other peeps,

I am concerned about the meetings at Assisi and altogether any ecumenism. I have no problem proclaiming the Truth of the Faith but to me this has not been the case so as to not “offend” people. I don’t see how any of the modern developments since the 60s really help the Church or for that matter provided clearer teaching. What are we to make of Assisi and ecumenism in light of Pope Pius XI’s encyclical Mortalium Animos, On Christian Unity.

It can be found here:
[papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11MORTA.HTM](http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11MORTA.HTM)

Doesn’t the Pope’s warning in this encyclical shake the Second Vatican Council and recent actions of Pope Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI?

For the record, I agree much more with Pope Pius XI.

I can’t pretend to be a good judge of popes. All I can say on the matter, is that as a Catholic, I have been taught that the sanctuary contains sacred things. I know altars, especially in churches as at Assisi, that the relics of Saints, some Martyrs, have them in, and under them.

Then there is the Tabernacle. I’ve heard it said that at certain gatherings, the Most Blessed Sacrament was taken out of the tabernacle while pagans did their thing. So it’s Ok. Ok ? That strikes me as Sacrilege. Set our Lord aside to allow it ? Not to mention the added dis-respect for the relics.

I’ve never heard an explanation that justifies this. The fact this happens in some of the holiest places and in front of prominent clergy baffles me. It’s like everything I’ve ever been taught about the Most Blessed Sacrament and the Saints is wrong.

 

[Alfonsus]

I don’t judge the goodness/badness of Asisi. I do believe it is done with good intention.
I live in a country with the biggest moslem population in the world.
From time to time we faced radical movements.
In 1998, a bomb explode right in front of my face, in my church parking lot, just before the second Christmas eve Mass. I saw people running with blood.

But we do need to stand together as a nation. The targets are Christians, the perpetrators did not even know the differences between a Catholic, Lutheran or a Jehovah Witnesses. They plant a bomb that kills even their fellow moslem.

But we know, we need dialog with every possible man with good will. During those times, people from diverse religions comes together to offer condolences, and offer prayers and help for the victims, and for the whole nations.

It is important. It shows who we are, our attitude as Christians, and to whom we are offering our prayers. When good will prevails, testifying faith become more conductive.

I heard people here and there, in several forums, denouncing Holy Father of these kind of dialog and talk with Islam. “Look at what they did, why wasting time?”
But the hell they don’t have the guts to come here, go into the market, do what they idealized and giving their necks.
It was our Churches that was bombed.
While people like them only read some news and judge things should be this and that, without leaving their comfortable seats and start proclaiming faith the way they demand.

They demand a crusade, but want us to be the knights. They judge us when we did not live their ideal fantasy. I’m sure they will praise us if we are killed for faith but they won’t go to the battle themselves.

Now, advise me. Should I mad at their attitude?

 

[pnewton]

I am “cherry picking” here, but these paragraphs do speak toward the types of Catholics (mature, unfaithful and the weak).

November 1964 - DECREE ON ECUMENISM

I think you are demonstrating why we so often have confusion and complaints about ecumenism. It is unavoidable, with Catholics world-wide engaging in ecumenism, that some efforts are going to be misdirected. Perhaps some of this is intentional, but I can easily see how simple ecumenical efforts can spiral past what is acceptable, especially if some leaders are not careful or poorly informed on the limits of ecumenism. Still, I think it is far better that we are making the attempt, as it was an essential ingredient in Jesus’ High Priestly Prayer.

I also see a real need to unify with others and face the great evils of this generation. We do this often for abortion, but it is even more critical that we fight the evils behind abortion, modernism and materialism. In this fight, we may find we have a stronger ally in the more disciplined non-catholics than in the some worldly Catholics. This may even prove a bridge to ecumenism and conversion.

 

[ProVobis]

If you don’t mind I’d prefer if you did. I’m not terribly well versed in the debate.

This is difficult to define exactly. Let me venture out and say when you convert someone, he or she fully accepts your way of thinking, your philosophy, your doctrines, and/or practices and makes it a part of their life. Ecumenism is probably more of respecting others’ thinking, philosophies, etc. The problem is that this can become a convoluted argument when your own philosophy evolves to the point ecumenism is required, in which case conversion isn’t required or becomes meaningless. Why convert when everyone’s philosophy is equally good and must be equally respected? Does this make sense?

 

[Judge_Mental]

I kinda skimmed this thread, but it won’t stopped me commenting

Is the Pope going to be at Assisi III? If so, Catholics might be pleasantly surprised at what he does there. And pagans annoyed. In England, he asserted himself quietly in Westminster Abbey and the Houses of Parliament. You have no idea of what that meant, historically. And in a nice, soft, German accent. Before: the wolves howled. Afterwards, they were silent. Amazing.

The proper approach of a bishop to pagan idols is to take his third-best crozier (the hefty one), raise it above said idol and bring it down sharply. Repeat.

The one thing about (false) ecumenism that no one has said is that it is so BORING. Even typing that sentence left me weak. I think Anglicanorum Coetibus has helped put a bullet in the head of that blind, toothless beast.