Traditionalist catholics and the assisi prayer meetings


#1

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


#2

i believe the church teaches that God will listen to anyone who prays whose intention is for the Universal Goodness.

a good example is World Peace. so i dont see any problems with this.


#3

That I don’t know, but I have always been weary of what happened there and feel it shouldn’t. I also feel that PJP2 missed a great oppurtunity to witness for the true faith.


#4

yea i know. i even heard that a hindu woman gave a speach there saying “we are all god, and you who are god rejoice…” or something like that. I also heard that crucifixes were removed in the different rooms of the franciscan monestery so that the non christians could worship


#5

That is true. And a Buddha statues was placed above a Tabernacle so the Buddhists could dance in front of it.


#6

Posting only half the truth with the intent to mislead is the same as lying. Church officials did not place the statue of Buddha on the tabernacle, the Buddhists did. When it was discovered, the Church officials asked them to remove it and explained the real presence to the Buddhists. The Buddhists apologized profusely. It was a mistake made in ignorance, not a deliberate act to desecrate the chapel.

Yours in Christ,
Thursday


#7

Almost by definition, there is no ideal response to evil.

If you take a very harsh line against it, you risk being uncharitable, and hardening the heart of the wicked man. If you try to be very gentle you risk approving of it, or confusing your own members as to the real status of the evil practises.

Somewhere between there is the right line. Popes don’t always find that line infallibly.


#8

JPII had WORLD PEACE (aka no conflicts intra or inter-national…no killing PERIOD, for no reason. PERIOD.) as the reason for his pontificate.

He had a plan to accomplish it by means of the religious influence in every nation.
The instrument he chose was ECUMENISM to persuade all religions that could influence their members, to promote peaceful means for all contraversies, be it material or spiritual.
Converting people to the catholic faith was not on his agenda. He felt that had been tried for several centuries and did not succeed as a means to WORLD PEACE.

This is why we see so many unheard of experiments or endeavors into ECUMENISM.

His only urgent sense of conversion was to convert or persuade all other religions to make peaceful coexistence a priority within their nations or spheres of influence. He really didn’t particulary care about anything else they believed.

Finally, he worked hard to remove historical animosity between the Catholic church and any other religion as a secondary means for promoting WORLD PEACE.

That’s the short concise meat of His motives, actions, speeches, letters, world marathon travels.

Seen through this lens of WORLD PEACE, the mystery of some of the things people are scandalised by is solved.

He saw himself as the WORLD’S papa, not just the Catholic’s Pope.


#9

not to be rude but maybe if the buddhists wern’t worshiping along side catholics this wouldn’t have happened to begin with.


#10

While world peace may have been a secondary concern his primary motivation seems to have been to bring ALL the worlds religions together under one banner with the Catholic Church in the center and the others arranged around it in in order of belief. The Orthodox first, then the protestants, the Jews, the Muslims and then everyone else. He apparently saw very little distinction in Judaism, Islam and Christianity except in degrees of acceptance of Christ, all being Abrahamic religions in nature, and the others faiths just not being advanced enough in theological understanding although in some cases apparently surpassing Christianity in spirituality.IE his statements about Hinduism.

While a good and holy man he did much that in retrospect appears not to have had the best interest of Catholicism or Christianity in general as a motivating factor.


#11

Golly, and all this time I thought the Pope was the successor to St. Peter–the leader of Christ’s Church. Just goes to show what I don’t know. Sure glad we have all that WORLD PEACE now.


#12

My toughts exactly. 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.


#13

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

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.


#14

Quite true. These meetings shouldnt have been held in a Catholic church- well, they shouldnt have been held at all, but thats another matter.


#15

Are you suggesting that Assisi never took place? Or are you acknowledging that it did, but object to those who criticize it? I’m not clear on your position. What is the slander you speak of? It seems to me people are only stating what indeed happened-- that John Paul invited representatives of nearly every religion from around the world to pray in their respective traditions, for the goal of world peace. One can either agree or disagree with his decision, but to call it slander to point out what truly happened is not helpful, if indeed that’s what you were doing (and I apologize if I have misunderstood you).


#16

Ecumenism refers to the relationship among different groups of Christians. Ecumenism does not refer to the relationship among different religions.

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


#17

[quote=Malcolm]If you take a very harsh line against it, you risk being uncharitable, and hardening the heart of the wicked man. If you try to be very gentle you risk approving of it, or confusing your own members as to the real status of the evil practises.

[/quote]

[quote=TNT]Converting people to the catholic faith was not on his agenda. He felt that had been tried for several centuries and did not succeed as a means to WORLD PEACE.
His only urgent sense of conversion was to convert or persuade all other religions to make peaceful coexistence a priority within their nations or spheres of influence. He really didn’t particulary care about anything else they believed.
[/quote]

[quote=Palmas85]While a good and holy man he did much that in retrospect appears not to have had the best interest of Catholicism or Christianity in general as a motivating factor.
[/quote]

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?


#18

Rykell,

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 because they send a false message-- whether JPII intended it or not-- that all religions are more or less praiseworthy. This is an error of modernism which has been formally condemned by the Church.


#19

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?


#20

I’m always interested in the language that many Catholics use - in here and in real conversations. The particular words people choose often have a lot to say beyond the actual words themselves.

“I see… and declare” - sounds like the sort of thing a Pope would say - except that a Pope would have the right and the responsibility to make such a declaration.

“They send a false message” - well, they may send a false message, or they may not. We’re not children, we’re thinking adults. Give us Catholics, and the wider public, some credit for working out what message, if any, a meeting like the one at Assisi sends.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.