OraProMe Posted November 21, 2009 Posted November 21, 2009 I was wondering what people here thought/think of John Paul II's ecumenical gathering at Assisi in 1986*. Each religious group was given a separate room to carry out the particular rituals and prayers belonging to their faith. Good or bad? For those who don't know about the event: http://www.americancatholic.org/Features/Assisi/PeaceCapital.asp [IMG]http://i50.tinypic.com/20888jt.jpg[/IMG] *Let's try not to dishonour his memory.
Theoketos Posted November 21, 2009 Posted November 21, 2009 At best it was silly. Though it really showed that the Pope is THE ecumenical patriarch and that the Catholic Church is above all religions.
OraProMe Posted November 21, 2009 Author Posted November 21, 2009 [quote name='KnightofChrist' date='20 November 2009 - 08:39 PM' timestamp='1258767589' post='2006617'] Bad [/quote] Come on, you can give more than that! Do you think it constitutes a sin (desecration, spreading indifferentism etc.)?
OraProMe Posted November 21, 2009 Author Posted November 21, 2009 [quote name='Theoketos' date='20 November 2009 - 09:51 PM' timestamp='1258771861' post='2006644'] At best it was silly. Though it really showed that the Pope is THE ecumenical patriarch and that the Catholic Church is above all religions. [/quote] How?
Apotheoun Posted November 21, 2009 Posted November 21, 2009 I think the Pope was well-intentioned in holding the gathering at Assisi, but much of what went on at that event involved theological indifferentism and so it was a mistake to sponsor the event. The term ecumenism applies only to the baptized, who - by baptism - are made members of the household (oekumene) of God. Inter-faith dialogue is not a form of ecumenism.
KnightofChrist Posted November 21, 2009 Posted November 21, 2009 [quote name='OraProMe' date='20 November 2009 - 10:11 PM' timestamp='1258773076' post='2006650'] Come on, you can give more than that! Do you think it constitutes a sin (desecration, spreading indifferentism etc.)? [/quote] Bad, because of the great scandal it caused within the faithful. Which continues up till today and will continue for many years to come. It is one of the justified reasons against his Sainthood.
KnightofChrist Posted November 21, 2009 Posted November 21, 2009 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='20 November 2009 - 10:17 PM' timestamp='1258773446' post='2006654'] I think the Pope was well-intentioned in holding the gathering at Assisi, but much of what went on at that event involved theological indifferentism and so it was a mistake to sponsor the event. The term ecumenism applies only to the baptized, who - by baptism - are made members of the household (oekumene) of God. Inter-faith dialogue is not a form of ecumenism. [/quote] Agreed.
OraProMe Posted November 21, 2009 Author Posted November 21, 2009 [quote name='KnightofChrist' date='20 November 2009 - 10:25 PM' timestamp='1258773907' post='2006658'] Bad, because of the great scandal it caused within the faithful. Which continues up till today and will continue for many years to come. It is one of the justified reasons against his Sainthood. [/quote] I'm not sure how old you are but were you alive/old enough to remember when this happened? Can you tell us a bit about the "great scandal it caused within the faithful"?
Winchester Posted November 21, 2009 Posted November 21, 2009 Were there neopagans? I can't say enough bad stuff about those candle sniffing hippies.
Resurrexi Posted November 21, 2009 Posted November 21, 2009 [quote name='KnightofChrist' date='20 November 2009 - 08:39 PM' timestamp='1258767589' post='2006617'] Bad [/quote]
JimR-OCDS Posted November 21, 2009 Posted November 21, 2009 Pope John Paul II lived the gospel message at Assisi in 1986. He brought the true Jesus Christ to the world, not just platitudes. He was Christ in action. Those he upset by doing this, really don't know Christ for if they did, they would've loved John Paul the Great for Christ was in him. Jim
Nihil Obstat Posted November 21, 2009 Posted November 21, 2009 [quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='21 November 2009 - 09:30 AM' timestamp='1258817416' post='2006843'] Pope John Paul II lived the gospel message at Assisi in 1986. He brought the true Jesus Christ to the world, not just platitudes. He was Christ in action. Those he upset by doing this, really don't know Christ for if they did, they would've loved John Paul the Great for Christ was in him. Jim [/quote] That's a dangerously wide brush you're trying to paint with.
KnightofChrist Posted November 21, 2009 Posted November 21, 2009 [quote name='OraProMe' date='20 November 2009 - 11:50 PM' timestamp='1258779046' post='2006695'] I'm not sure how old you are but were you alive/old enough to remember when this happened? Can you tell us a bit about the "great scandal it caused within the faithful"? [/quote] I would just state what Apo stated, which is why I agreed with his statement.
JimR-OCDS Posted November 21, 2009 Posted November 21, 2009 This part which took place, pretty much says it all, when it came to those who opposed the Pope in Assisi. From the article in the OP; [quote] Not everyone, of course, welcomed the Pope's initiative, not even within the Catholic community. Some. Catholic, ultra-conservative extremists, who reject Vatican II along with its decrees and teachings, were giving out printed sheets, which denounced the Pope as "heretic and apostate" for going against the soundest traditions of the Catholic faith and fraternizing excessively with other religions. Their message was aptly depicted in two cartoons: one showing the Pope telling Jesus Christ that he was not welcome at the prayer meeting in Assisi, and the other showing Jesus Christ at the gate of heaven telling the Pope that he was not welcome there. At the bottom of the cartoon was "the other place" where a grinning Satan says the Pope was welcome there. Not many paid attention to these handouts, most of which were crumpled and thrown away, or else tucked away by souvenir hunters with a taste for oddities. [/quote] I remember the nonsense the SSPX members put out. One had a blurred pic which had to be explained where the alleged that the Pope had statue of Buddha on the altar while he said Mass. Turns out it was a statue of the baby Jesus. Like I said before, these people don't know Christ, because if they did, they would've recognized Jesus in Pope John Paul II. Jim
Nihil Obstat Posted November 21, 2009 Posted November 21, 2009 [quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='21 November 2009 - 02:08 PM' timestamp='1258834116' post='2006971'] This part which took place, pretty much says it all, when it came to those who opposed the Pope in Assisi. From the article in the OP; I remember the nonsense the SSPX members put out. One had a blurred pic which had to be explained where the alleged that the Pope had statue of Buddha on the altar while he said Mass. Turns out it was a statue of the baby Jesus. Like I said before, these people don't know Christ, because if they did, they would've recognized Jesus in Pope John Paul II. Jim [/quote] I'll say again, you're painting with a dangerously wide brush. Some oppose the initiative within perfect obedience to the Church, and from perfectly legitimate reasons. Your implication that every person who opposed the initiative is an "ultra conservative extremist" is offensive and hysterical.
goldenchild17 Posted November 21, 2009 Posted November 21, 2009 [quote name='OraProMe' date='20 November 2009 - 07:09 PM' timestamp='1258765782' post='2006605'] I was wondering what people here thought/think of John Paul II's ecumenical gathering at Assisi in 1986*. Each religious group was given a separate room to carry out the particular rituals and prayers belonging to their faith. Good or bad? For those who don't know about the event: http://www.americancatholic.org/Features/Assisi/PeaceCapital.asp [IMG]http://i50.tinypic.com/20888jt.jpg[/IMG] *Let's try not to dishonour his memory. [/quote] I don't think it was a good idea at all and quite unnecessary in my opinion. I think the intentions were good but it could only serve to cause more scandal and questions than good as far as I can tell. But as far as any malicious intent or anything blatantly heretical, I don't think there was such. I like Benedict XVI's explanation on the matter which prevents the more liberal side from using it to further there agenda and also shows that JPII didn't mean anything heretical by it. So I think it was a very bad idea and didn't probably have the intended effect, but JPII can be excused from any purposeful heretical action I think: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20060902_xx-incontro-assisi_en.html “In order not to misinterpret the meaning of what John Paul II wanted to achieve in 1986 and what, to use his own words, he habitually called the "spirit of Assisi", it is important not to forget the attention paid on that occasion to ensuring that the interreligious Prayer Meeting did not lend itself to syncretist interpretations founded on a relativistic concept. For this very reason, John Paul II declared at the outset: "The fact that we have come here does not imply any intention of seeking a religious consensus among ourselves or of negotiating our faith convictions. Neither does it mean that religions can be reconciled at the level of a common commitment in an earthly project which would surpass them all. Nor is it a concession to relativism in religious beliefs" (ibid., n. 2). I would like to reaffirm this principle which constitutes the premise for the interreligious dialogue that the Second Vatican Council was hoping for, as is expressed in the Declaration on the Relations of the Church to Non-Christian Religions (cf. Nostra Aetate, n. 2). I gladly take this opportunity to greet the representatives of other religions who are taking part in one or other of the Assisi commemorations. Like us Christians, they know that in prayer it is possible to have a special experience of God and to draw from it effective incentives for dedication to the cause of peace. However, here too, it is only right to avoid an inappropriate confusion. Therefore, even when we are gathered together to pray for peace, the prayer must follow the different uses proper to the various religions. This was the decision in 1986 and it continues to be valid also today. The convergence of differences must not convey an impression of surrendering to that relativism which denies the meaning of truth itself and the possibility of attaining it.”
Vincent Vega Posted November 21, 2009 Posted November 21, 2009 (edited) [quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='21 November 2009 - 03:08 PM' timestamp='1258834116' post='2006971'] Turns out it was a statue of the baby Jesus. Like I said before, these people don't know Christ, because if they did, they would've recognized Jesus in Pope John Paul II. Jim [/quote] So when a mother has a baby aborted, it's because "she doesn't understand" that it's a human, and then the doctor aborts the baby (without any malice). When the SSPX thinks that there was a statue of Buddha on the alter, they aren't Christian. Clear as mud. Edited November 21, 2009 by USAirwaysIHS
Nihil Obstat Posted November 21, 2009 Posted November 21, 2009 [quote name='USAirwaysIHS' date='21 November 2009 - 04:45 PM' timestamp='1258843544' post='2007041'] So when a mother has a baby aborted, it's because "she doesn't understand" that it's a human, and then the doctor aborts the baby (without any malice). When the SSPX thinks that there was a statue of Buddha on the alter, they aren't Christian. Clear as mud. [/quote] They're also extremists.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now