John Paul Ii's Ecumenical Gathering At Assisi

[Nihil Obstat]

[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]

[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.”

[Nihil Obstat]

Pretty good for a sedevacatist.

[Vincent Vega]

[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]

[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.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='21 November 2009 - 04:40 PM' timestamp='1258843241' post='2007031']
Pretty good for a sedevacatist.
[/quote]

I'm working on it

[Servus_Mariae]

I agree with Apotheum and KC as well. Though, I will submit something too. I don't think this was sinful, but I do think it was a mistake. I don't think John Paul II thought to himself planning this thing, "I just want everyone to realize that all religions are the same and equally valid". Let us recall that he was just as repulsed by relativism as the next Pope. His action however well intentioned, was imprudent. Because though he did not want this to express indifferentism...it screams it and to the average Catholic in this world who doesn't know any better...probably thought the same thing.

...and yeah, to the claim that one has to be an SSPX "ultra conservative extremist" to oppose this is ridiculous. This was not about faith and morals. John Paul II made a move to point to a higher truth (that we are all brothers in faith in God)and did so in an imprudent manner. We don't want to burn him at the stake or deny his papacy. I personally love the man and revere him with the utmost respect. I read his works for insights on philosophy and theology with attentive eagerness...precisely because of his brilliance.

[OraProMe]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='21 November 2009 - 04:42 PM' timestamp='1258839739' post='2006992']
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.
[/quote]
Cardinal Ratzinger criticized the meeting and I think he may have refused to attend the second Assisi (I think..)

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='OraProMe' date='21 November 2009 - 05:58 PM' timestamp='1258847917' post='2007083']
Cardinal Ratzinger criticized the meeting and I think he may have refused to attend the second Assisi (I think..)
[/quote]
Ok. Well within his rights, and I'd most likely believe that to be the most prudent choice. Was this meant to be directed towards me? I'm confused

Edited November 22, 2009 by Nihil Obstat

[OraProMe]

Ahhh no, just towards the whole idea that anyone who opposed Assisi must be an extreme-right wing SSPXer.

[OraProMe]

Probably would have been best to quote Jim.

[Lounge Daddy]

I am not very familiar with this event.

Was the point to increase the dialogue among people of different faiths? To help people of different religions understand each other's religious expression and worship?

If so, did it work? (Although any answer to that would probably be only speculation.)

[mortify]

I think it was a good thing.

Only the visible head of the Catholic Church had the capability of calling religious leaders from all over the world for a common and noble end; As another poster noted, this itself is a powerful testament to the Church's authority and prestige (I doubt the Dali Lama would come at the request of an ordinary protestant minister.) People of various religions are united to us through a common descent from Adam, the fact that Christ calls them to Him, and for the simple reason we tend to suffer from the same ills, thus there's nothing wrong with praying for something universal like world peace or a protection of life from birth to natural death. Lastly, the Pope made it clear his firm and explicit conviction is that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the World, and true Peace, and so he gave witness to the Gospel in front of all those leaders!

Read the statement yourself:
[url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1986/october/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19861027_prayer-peace-assisi-final_en.html"]World Day of Prayer[/url]


Thank God for Holy Mother Church!
M.

Edited November 22, 2009 by mortify

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='mortify' date='22 November 2009 - 01:04 AM' timestamp='1258866281' post='2007183']
I think it was a good thing.

Only the visible head of the Catholic Church had the capability of calling religious leaders from all over the world for a common and noble end
...
the Pope made it clear his firm and explicit conviction is that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the World, and true Peace, and so he gave witness to the Gospel in front of all those leaders!

Read the statement yourself:
[url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1986/october/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19861027_prayer-peace-assisi-final_en.html"]World Day of Prayer[/url]


Thank God for Holy Mother Church!
M.
[/quote]

Thanks for posting that link. This is very helpful.

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' date='21 November 2009 - 06:45 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]


What does abortion have to do with the subject at hand?


Jim