Assisi Revisited (JPII 's Scandalous Synchristic Gathering 1986)

Editor’s Note: We’re reproducing the following article from The Remnant (February 1987) as a means of calling to mind how traditional Catholics generally reacted to the first interreligious prayer meeting held at Assisi in 1986. So scandalous was that event that to this day it is often cited as the “straw that broke the camel’s back” with respect to the breakdown in discussions between the Vatican and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who described it as “an immeasurable scandal that has no precedent”.

With a 25th anniversary event having been scheduled by the Vatican to take place in Assisi in October 2011, we believe it necessary for Catholics to remember exactly what took place on that sad occasion, so that, if nothing else, they may more fervently pray that the anniversary celebration will not become a repeat performance of what many conservative Catholics to this day regard as a most disastrous chapter in the pontificate of the late Pope John Paul II.

Let us pray for the Church and pray for the Pope. Let us urge him to use the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the prayer meeting at Assisi to make amends, if he can, for the frightful scandal that occurred in that holy city, particularly the Buddha statue that was placed atop the sacred tabernacle of a Catholic church, and let him inform the world and reassure all Catholics that this was indeed an egregious blunder, one which will never be permitted again, whether under the shibboleth of “ecumenism” or of any other no doubt well-meaning attempt at inter-religious unity. MJM

On June 19, 1955, in celebration of the 10th anniversary of the United Nations, a U.N. Festival of All Faiths was held at the San Francisco Cow Palace. This service was an amalgam of all religions, in which Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Bahais, and all denominations of Christianity (except two) were represented. The two exceptions were the Lutherans and the Roman Catholics. Yet on October 27, 1986, exactly the same sort of meeting was held in Assisi, Italy, and it was summoned by the Pope himself. Moreover, the Pope went one better – he arranged for African animists, who worship the Great Thumb, to attend! What happened in the Roman Catholic Church in these 31 years? Is it changing? Or is it being changed? If so, who is it being changed by?

When the Pope visited Canada in September, 1984, two “ecumenical meetings” were set up for him by the Rev. Brian Clough, Rector of Canada’s major English-language seminary, St. Augustine’s, Toronto. Fr. Clough included most of the same churches and religions as the above – “Buddhists, native peoples, Hindus, Bahais, Sikhs, Muslims and Zoroastrians”, wrote the Toronto Sun newspaper of July 12, 1984. Rev. Brian Clough was hurriedly fired as Rector of St. Augustine’s because of his “soft” attitude to homosexuality at the seminary just before the Pope’s arrival, but his “ecumenical meetings” were allowed to stand.

At the meetings the Pope completely ignored the non-Christians present and treated the ecumenical service as if it were purely Christian, i.e., the traditional meaning assigned to “ecumenism”. Even Canada’s most famous Rabbi, Dr. W. Gunther Plaut, had to admit, “That, of course, is a legitimate and accepted meaning of the word ’ecumenical’,” …(Globe & Mail, Sept 20, 1984) For his action, the Pope was much criticized by the press – see, for example, the article in the Globe & Mail of Sept. 18, 1984, captioned NON-CHRISTIANS FELT LIKE OUTSIDERS AT RECEPTION, RABBI SAYS. Later, the Pope was to be criticized by Canada’s senior active Cardinal, Cardinal Carter, who said that “…with hindsight he wishes the inter-faith service at St. Paul’s Anglican Church had been better organized to allow greater representation by non-Christians – especially Jewish leaders.” (The Toronto Sunday Sun, Sept. 15, 1985).

Yet all the Pope had done – in 1984 – was to interpret “ecumenism” as Christian unity. A few months previously, the World Council of Churches (WCC) had held its 6th General Assembly in Vancouver. It defined “ecumenism” as “of the whole inhabited world” (from the Greek word “oikumenous”, meaning “the whole inhabited world.” Now, at Assisi, 1986, the Pope accepted the WCC interpretation of “ecumenism” which he had refused to accept in Canada in 1984! Again we must ask: Is the Roman Catholic Church changing? Or is it being changed, and if so, who is it being changed by?

Will the Roman Catholic Church now join the WCC? Bear in mind that the WCC (represented at Assisi) is heading towards syncretism at great speed. At its 5th General Assembly, Nairobi, Kenya, November 1975, representatives from non-Christian religions were invited and allowed to read short papers to the Assembly. But in Vancouver, July-August 1984, non-Christian religions were invited not as mere observers, but as fully participating members! Moreover, the WCC is now almost totally Communist. Time magazine, August 21, 1983, under the caption “The Curious Politics of Ecumenism,” wrote: “To the World Council of Churches, the Soviets are sinless.” No original sin for Communists! Finally, the Vatican is still considering the WCC Lima Liturgy (BEM. B =Baptism, Eucharist, Ministry, manufactured at Lima, Peru, in January 1982 by 120 theologians, mainly Protestant, but including 12 Catholics also under the general leadership of Protestant Max Thurian of the “ecumenical monastery” in Taize, France. The Barque of Peter is indeed sailing on treacherous seas!

The chief organizer was Roger Cardinal Etchegaray, the President of the far-left Justice and Peace Commission, but he was aided by the United Nations World Conference on Religion and Peace (see later). 155 religious leaders participated from 12 major religions – Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, Zoroastrians, African animists (including snake worshippers), from Togo, Sikhs, Shinto priests from Japan, Jains, two American Indians (one being the medicine man of the Crow Indians, Montana) and the Bahais (who believe that Christ was just one of nine divine messengers and not the most important one). The Christians included Robert Runcie, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Emilio Castro, the present Secretary General of the World Council of Churches, and Patriarchs of the Russian, Bulgarian and Czechoslovak Orthodox Churches, and the Greek Orthodox patriarch of Constantinople. The Dalia Lama “God-King´” exiled from Tibet was also there. Of him the N.Y Times of Oct. 28, 1986, wrote:

The day produced some extraordinary cultural encounters. For example, the Buddhists, led by the Dalai Lama, quickly converted the altar of the Church of San Pietro by placing a small statue of the Buddha atop the tabernacle and setting prayer scrolls and incense burners around it.

The Buddhists then turned their backs on the Blessed Sacrament left in a side chapel.

While the meeting was held, ostensibly “to pray for peace”, why would God listen to prayers from those who profess other gods? Pope John Paul II may not have broken the First Commandment by worshipping strange gods himself, but he convened the Assisi meeting at which many others were present amid world-wide and almost totally favourable publicity from the media. And some of the gods were indeed “strange” – “an immeasurable scandal that has no precedent” was how Archbishop Lefebvre put it. St. Paul said, “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness, and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial?”

We quote from the Canadian Catholic Register, January 10, 1987, quoting NC News Service, “The unity shown by world religious leaders who prayed for peace in Assisi, Italy, last October (1986) was “visible illustration” of the Second Vatican Council’s call for ecumenism and interreligious dialogue, Pope John Paul II said.” This speech was laced with quotations from the documents of Vatican II, which he said showed how “such a great event sprang from the teaching of the council.” Here we have the source of all this – Vatican II – and there can be no question of “misrepresentation” since the Pope himself has interpreted it. Our Lord did not call for “ecumenism and interreligious dialogue.” Our Lord said: “Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”

The Assisi meeting was held “to pray for peace.” While there are certainly many nasty wars, all Soviet-inspired, now raging in the world, e.g., Afghanistan, let us see how St. Paul himself defined why: “We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” (Ephesians, 6:12)

Now with the best will in the world we have to admit that Muslims, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Bahais, African animists, and these other religions do not accept that Christ is God. Since Christ IS God, these religions – with the best will in the world – must be considered as anti-Christians and therefore anti-God.

How, then, would their prayers help in the real war, i.e., the war as defined by St. Paul, of which the wars on earth are merely the effect and not the cause? Jesus said, “How can Satan cast out Satan?” (Mark, 2:23) Remember “wars are a punishment for sin,” Our Lady said at Fatima. And who should be making us sin and thus causing the wars now plaguing our tormented and threatened world: “The rulers of the darkness of this world.” The Pope in his undoubtedly sincere desire for peace should rather listen to Our Divine Lord Himself, who said, “If I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.” (Matt. 12a;28)

“What will take place at Assisi will certainly not be religious syncretism,” said Pope John Paul II on October 22, 1986. According to the Pope, the difference lay in the fact that they had not “come to pray together” but “to come together to pray.” The well –known Religion Commentator for the powerful Toronto Star newspaper, Tom Harper, wrote after Assisi: “There was too much fear that the various groups might be seen or thought of as actually praying together, thus suggesting they viewed each other as equals in truth. This is why Pope John Paul II kept insisting they had not come to ‘pray together’ but had come together to pray. But who cares?” (Toronto Star, Nov. 9, 1986) Yes, there’s the rub - WHO CARES? Who will even notice these essentially ‘fine print’ reservations, in effect a question of mere semantics? It would seem as if some malignant hand behind the Pope is determined to stampede Catholics into Syncretism, while technically not committing the Pope to it.

It could hardly be otherwise since Pope Paul VI condemned syncretism in his encyclical Evangelii Nuntiandi, Dec. 8, 1975. BUT GOD IS NOT MOCKED. The vast bulk of Catholics may now rush off into syncretism, or exotic religions such as the GREAT THUMB, the Bahais, various Hindu cults, Zoroastrians, etc., or in disgust to Fundamentalism. Remember, the well-known American Fundamentalist leader, Dr. Carl McIntyre called Assisi “the greatest single abomination in church history” – the same sentiments as expressed by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who called it “the supreme imposture, the culminating insult of Our Lord” and also “in my view, this is a diabolical act.”

“The astonishing variety of the invited group also raised suspicions among some Christians that Assisi represented a heretical step towards syncretism, the amalgamation of various conflicting religions.” (Time, Nov. 10, 1986), which explains why the Pope had previously said, “What will take place at Assisi will certainly not be religious syncretism”. Let us here digress a moment to see what syncretism is.

The best definition, ironically enough, was given by the first Secretary General of the World Council of Churches (1948-1966). Dr. W. A. Visser’t Hooft in his excellent book, NO OTHER NAME: The Choice between syncretism and Christian Universalism (The Westminster Press Philadelphia, 1963, and also by the SCM Press Ltd. London, in 1963. On page 11 Dr. Hooft wrote:

The word syncretism should be reserved for another type of religious attitude, which deserves to have its own name because it is such an important, persistent and widespread religious phenomenon. This is the view which holds that there is no unique revelation in history, that there are many different ways to reach the divine reality, that all formulations of religious truth or experience are by their very nature inadequate expressions of that truth and that it is necessary to harmonize as much as possible all religious ideas and experiences so as to create one universal religion for mankind.

Many of the best among us are deeply anxious about the inability of the human family, now forced for better or worse to live in close contact, to find a common ethos, a common standard for human relations. It is realized that such an ethos must be rooted in common convictions about the ultimate issues of life. Does it not follow that we must somehow force the religious leaders to come to agreement and to develop one universal world-religion? Is therefore syncretism in some form not inevitable?

It is precisely this plausible, rationally almost self-evident character of the syncretistic answer to the needs of the world that makes it a more dangerous challenge to the Christian Church than full-fledged atheism is ever likely to be.

Dr. Hooft’s book is now unfortunately out of print. In the absence of a reprint (unlikely because Dr. Hooft died in December, 1985), the reader is referred to A Study in Syncretism (The Background and Apparatus of the Emerging One World Church) by the present writer and obtainable from the Canadian Intelligence Publications (Box 130, Flesherton, Ont, NOC 1EO,) The United Nations has an official syncretic body called the World Conference On Religion and Peace (WCRP) and its office is Suite 777 (sic) at the United Nations Plaza. (Some feel Suite 666 would be appropriate.)

It is unfortunate that the Pope in recent months, including at Assisi, called repeatedly for the closest possible collaboration with the United Nations, a godless and Masonic organization now fast coming under total Soviet control – a Marxist world government. Assisi was in fact held to “mark the U.N. International Year of Peace”. The WCRP has had four meetings so far: at Kyoto, Japan, in 1970; at Louvain, Belgium in 1974; in Princeton, U.S.A. in 1979; and lastly at Nairobe, Kenya, in August, 1984, the current media darling, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a supposed Anglican, was elected as President of the WCRP. The present Secretary General of the WCRP is Dr. John B. Taylor, formerly Director of the World Council of Churches Sub-Unit for Dialogue with People of Living Faiths and Ideologies (the DFI)), who has said that “the world conference (on religion and Peace) has supported the Assisi meeting from the beginning and has been involved in the planning stages.” (The Toronto Star, October, 18th, 1986). Dr. Taylor was also quoted as saying, “The patronage of such people as the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury is going to encourage some of those who are perhaps a little bit hesitant or suspicious to get together at the local level”. (Star, October, 18th, 1986) Exactly what we had feared.

The basic principle behind syncretism is that all religions are of equal validity. While the Pope does not actually say this, his praise and uncritical deference towards heathen, man-made religions and to Judaism will certainly convey to many that basic principle, i.e. his incessant travels must serve to reinforce the syncretism of Assisi. Consider: he smoked sweet grass with Canadian Indians on his Canadian tour, 1984. In 1984 he visited a Buddhist Temple in Thailand. In 1985 he apologized to Moslems in his Morocco visit and also heaped great praise on them. That same year he visited the sacred forest near Lohomay, Togo, in the company of Aseno or Great Priest of the Sacred Forest.

During his Togo visit the Pope met with snake-worshippers who were later to participate at Assisi. In 1986 he visited the main Rome Synagogue on terms and seating posture of absolute equality with the old and superseded Covenant of Judaism. In India, 1986, John Paul II allowed the ‘tilak’, a sandal wood paste mark, to be applied to his forehead by a Hindu “Priestess”. Everywhere he went in India, he quoted from the Hindu scriptures and actually partook in pagan rites. He praised the Hindu syncretist Gandhi to the skies. Gandhi said “I am a Christian and a Hindu and a Moslem and a Jew” and the Bahais acted as religious advisers to the movie on Gandhi. Moreover he recited the so-called “peace prayer”, the “asothama satgamaya” whose introduction by Cardinal Hume in England the great Hamish Fraser tried so hard to prevent. What chance did Hamish have when the pope himself used that prayer? In Suva, Fiji, November, 1986, the Pope drank “kava” a drink once condemned as a tool of devil worship. The Pope downed it in one swallow.

Hans Kung, who was deprived of his status as a Catholic theologian in 1979, is a strong supporter of the Assisi initiative. We quote from an NC report, Catholic Register (Toronto), April 19th, 1986:

Fr. Hans Kung, the Swiss-born professor of theology who has accused Pope John Paul II of having a pre-Vatican II mentality, has praised the Pope for his ongoing contacts with Christian and non-Christian religious leaders. “In this the Pope is certainly within the policy of Vatican II”, Fr. Kung said in an interview… “Many consider me as if I were an opponent of this Pope in everything.” “This is false,” said Fr. Kung. “I am happy to learn that the Pope speaks in favor of dialogues with other religions and that he commits himself to favoring these in his voyages”, he added. Regarding dialogue with non-Christian religions, it is necessary “to avoid every impression that behind these new initiatives is hidden the old spirit of Roman imperialism”, he said. (In other words – no converts!)… “I hope that the event of Assisi will be a meeting of equal dignity and not a manifestation of papal triumphalism,” he said… “Pope John Paul II, in calling for unified prayer by men of all faiths, shows he believes there is a common foundation for all religions”, he said.

We fear Hans Kung had in mind the Golden Rule – for significance see later. It will be remembered too that Hans Kung, while Visiting Professor at the University of Toronto, echoed the familiar stench of syncretism when he wrote, “Let them (the Catholic Bishops) work for the final understanding among Christian Churches, for an unprejudiced dialogue with Jews, Moslems, and other religions.” (The globe and Mail, October 5, 1985)

Thanking the delegates for traveling long distances and making sacrifices to attend Assisi, the Pope said the “golden rule” taught by Christ, ”Treat others as you would like them to treat you”, is a foundation for peace in all religions. (Our Sunday Visitor, November 16, 1986). It is true that the Golden Rule is to be found in all religions. There is also some evidence that the United Nations will proclaim the Golden Rule as the spiritual basis of its intended syncretist one world religion to be called World or Universal Brotherhood. In which case the Soviet Union in particular and Communism in general having conquered the world by treachery, trickery, especially legalistic trickery, and outright aggression, would be able to quote the Golden Rule to protect their ill-gotten gains. Just like the Robber turned Religious who quotes the 7th Commandment (Thou shalt not steal) to protect the swag he has already stolen!

Now the Golden Rule is an example of religious indifference par excellence. Do you really want religious indifferentism as the spiritual basis of the emerging one world state? Remember that with the Golden Rule you don’t necessarily get Christ at all: you could get Krishna, Zoroaster, Confucius, or Hillel, etc.

Jews usually attribute the Golden Rule to Hillel, although it occurs in Leviticus (19:18) Hillel was President of the Sanhedrin and died about A.D. 10. He is greatly honoured today by the B’Nai B’Rith. Bishop Fulton Sheen in his Life of Christ, McGraw-Hill Book Co. 1985, wrote that Hillel “may have been present in the Temple to join the discussion of the divine child”. We also find in A Catholic Dictionary, 1949, it was said, “By Jewish and modernist writers that Hillel has been put forward as a rival to Christ…”

Nearly 80 years ago, the Catholic Encyclopedia, published in New York, 1910, had to affirm that Hillel “for personal character and spiritual insight and permanent influence cannot in any way compare with, much less equal or surpass, as some have affirmed of late, Christ, the Light and Saviour of the World”.

Christ (not the Golden Rule!) must be the spiritual basis of future world order. For with Christ you automatically have the Golden Rule but not vise-versa. Pope Pius XII put the only solution for our tormented world as follows:

A call to revival, and cry for insurrection – a Christian insurrection – is heard throughout the world. The world will have to be rebuilt in Jesus.

Let’s see how St. Francis himself approached the same problem in the 6th Crusade in 1219. Oh yes, St. Francis wanted peace and he was “ecumenical” too! After great difficulties and hazards, the Saint approached the Soldan (i.e. Sultan). The following quotation is from Butler’s Lives of the Saints:

In the meantime St. Francis, burning with zeal for the conversion of the Sacracens, desired to pass to their camp, fearing no dangers for Christ. He was seized by the scouts of the infidels, to whom he cried out, “I am a Christian; conduct me to your master.” Being brought before the soldan, and asked by him his errand, he said with wonderful intrepidity and fervour, “I am sent, not by men, but the most high God, to show you and your people the way of salvation, by announcing to you the truth of the gospel.” The soldan appeared to be moved, and invited him to stay with him. The man of God replied, “if you and your people will listen to the word of God, I will stay with you. If yet you waver between Christ and Mahomet, cause a great fire to be kindled, and I will go into it with your Imams (or priests) that you may see which is the true faith.” The soldan answered that he did not believe any of their priests would be willing to go into the fire, or to suffer torments for their religion, and that he could not accept his condition for fear of sedition.

Archbishop Lefebvre has said of Assisi, “In my view, this is a diabolical act” and “the supreme imposture, the culminating insult to Our Lord”. We feel that Assisi will be repeated every year because, in his annual Christmas message, 1986, the Pope said, “The event at Assisi can be considered as a visible illustration, a lesson of facts, a catechism intelligible to all, of what the ecumenical commitment and the commitment of inter-religious dialogue presupposes and signifies”. (“A Model for Cooperation”, was the heading (Globe and Mail, Toronto, December 24, 1986)…

Pope John Paul II is our Pope and we must pray for him as never before. We must invoke the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Lily of Israel, constantly, and under her titles “Conqueror of Heretics”, “Queen of Victories” and “Queen of Peace”…

La Republica, February 5, 1993

ECUMENISM : POPE DIALOGUES WITH VOODOO SUPREME HIGH "PRIEST"GUEDEGUE

"Two monarchs, head to head, "One is John Paul II, the true Pope, head of the universal Catholic Church .... who traveled from the Vatican to Africa. The other is the 'high priest' Guedegue, the supreme head of Voodoo, which in Benin counts a quarter of the population, and the one who represents the spiritual point of reference for all the followers of the world of that religion of the Devil.

"At the meeting with the Pontiff, Guedegue was accompanied by a hundred 'priests' all proudly garbed in traditional 'vestments' and with their faces marked by long scars - a vestige of their initiations into the voodoo cult. The Pope received them with great respect and did not lose the opportunity to talk about dialogue, constructive relationships, and religious liberty."

---------------------------------------------

JPII Praises Voodoo Worship

Meeting with Guedegue of Benin, the Supreme Voodoo high-priest of the World, on February 4, 1993 during his visit to Benin, John Paul II gives the rationale to justify voodoo worship according to the principles of Vatican II.

From: John Paull II, Greeting to a Voodoo high-priest of Benin, published under the title "La libertà religiosa è un diritto inalienabile," in L'Osservatore Romano, February 6, 1993, p. 4:

Dear friends,

I am pleased to have this occasion to meet you, and I very cordially greet you. As you know, I came to Benin principally to visit with the Catholic community, to encourage it and confirm it in the faith. However, I have always thought that contact with persons who belong to other religious traditions is an important part of my ministry.

Indeed, the Catholic Church is favorable to dialogue: dialogue with Christians of other churches and ecclesial communities, dialogue with believers of other spiritual families, and dialogue even with those who do not profess any religion. The Church establishes positive and constructive relations with persons and human groups of other creeds for a reciprocal enrichment.

Vatican Council II …. recognized that there are truth and good, seeds of the Word, in the various religious traditions. …

These provide the foundations for a fruitful dialogue, as the Apostle Paul said to the first Christians: “Everything that is true, noble, just, pure, amiable, honorable, whatever is virtuous and deserves praise, let all these things be the object of your thinking.” From this comes our approach of respect [toward you]: respect for true values wherever they are, and overall respect for the man who looks to live these values that help him set aside fear.

You are strongly attached to the traditions which your ancestors transmitted to you. It is legitimate to recognize the ancestors who transmitted to you the sense of the sacral, faith in a one and good god, your tastes for celebrations, and consideration for moral life and harmony in society.

Maybe the real scandal is in SSPX for considering that Pope John Paul II to be the Anti-Christ.

I would like to see the SSPX take on Pope John Paul II's miracle that has gotten him to the point of Beatification.

Or maybe SSPX contests this miracle on the grounds that they like to hold grudges...

Finally, you might want to explain why Pope John Paul II attempted assassination was on May 13, 1981 by a KGB associated operated.

As Jesus said in the Bible: "You shall know a tree by its fruits".

By that measure, clearly Pope John Paul is of the tree of good fruit.

SSPX is of the tree of despair and grudges and attacks on the Church. A tree of good fruit or bad fruit?

Also, when Pope John Paul said no to ordaining the bishops that resulted in the ex-communication of the Archbishop, and the cause of a schism, the archbishop had three choices.

The archbishop chose the absolutely worst choice:

Ordaining the bishops in direct disobedience to the Pope, which he had pledged obedience.

He had three optsions:

(1) Delaying the ordinations until he could have an interview with the Pope directly, and explain the situation, and argue his case. This might have drawn out the process, but it seems that the Archbishop did not have trust in God or trust in anything but his actions.

(2) Not pursuing the ordinations in obedience to the Pope.

(3) Or the act he followed: Direct disobedience of the Pope against a vow he had taken as bishop of the church. How can such a person become a saint if he is a bad example.

But SSPX considers disobedience to be a good thing...

So that is why they are promoting the canonization of the Archbishop...

Pope John Paul has been dead but a few years -- since April 2005.

The late archbishop of SSPX has been dead much longer. Where is his miracle to prove that he is worthy of sainthood.

re: There is also a picture of Mother Teresa of Calcutta with President Bill Clinton. Should she be disqualified from being a saint because of association with Bill Clinton.

Can't you come up with a better defense of the Assisi ecumencial sacrilage than that? She didn't pray with Clinton, she didn't offer Clinton a Catholic church to do his worship to the devil.

Any Catholic that defends Assisi, has lost the faith or their marbles.

Subject: ECUMENISM

Solemn Pronouncements from Dogmatic Counsels, and Papal Encyclicals:

III Council of Constantinople, 680

If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or the meeting-houses of the heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion. If any bishop or priest or deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended from communion.

Council of Carthage, 418

One must neither pray nor sing psalms with heretics, and whosoever shall communicate with those who are cut off from the communion of the church, whether clergy or layman; let him be excommunicated.

Code of Canon Law, 1917

#1258 - 1. It is not permitted at all for the faithful to assist in any active manner at or to have any part in the worship of non-Catholics.

Excerps from "Mortalium Animos", Encyclical of Pope Pius XI, On Religious Unity, January 6, 1928.

2. A similar object is aimed at by some, in those matters which concern the New Law promulgated by Christ our Lord. For since they hold it for certain that men destitute of all religious sense are very rarely to be found, they seem to have founded on that belief a hope that the nations, although they differ among themselves in certain religious matters, will without much difficulty come to agree as brethren in professing certain doctrines, which form as it were a common basis of the spiritual life. For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little. turn aside to naturalism andatheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.

3. But some are more easily deceived by the outward appearance of good when there is question of fostering unity among all Christians. 4. Is it not right, it is often repeated, indeed, even consonant with duty, that all who invoke the name of Christ should abstain from mutual reproaches and at long last be united in mutual charity? Who would dare to say that he loved Christ, unless he worked with all his might to carry out the desires of Him, Who asked His Father that His disciples might be "one"[1]. And did not the same Christ will that His disciples should be marked out and distinguished from others by this characteristic, namely that they loved one another: "By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another"[2]? All Christians, they add, should be as "one": for then they would be much more powerful in driving out the pest of irreligion, which like a serpent daily creeps further and becomes more widely spread, and prepares to rob the Gospel of its strength. These things and others that class of men who are known as pan-Christians continually repeat and amplify; and these men, so far from being quite few and scattered, have increased to the dimensions of an entire class, and have grouped themselves into widely spread societies, most of which are directed by non-Catholics, although they are imbued with varying doctrines concerning the things of faith. This undertaking is so actively promoted as in many places to win for itself the adhesion of a number of citizens, and it even takes possession of the minds of very many Catholics and allures them with the hope of bringing about such a union as would be agreeable to the desires of Holy Mother Church, who has indeed nothing more at heart than to recall her erring sons and to lead them back to her bosom. But in reality beneath these enticing words and blandishments lies hid a mostgrave error, by which the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed.

5. Admonished, therefore, by the consciousness of Our Apostolic office that We should not permit the flock of the Lord to be cheated by dangerous fallacies, We invoke, Venerable Brethren, your zeal in avoiding this evil; for We are confident that by the writings and words of each one of you the people will more easily get to know and understand those principles and arguments which We are about to set forth, and from which Catholics will learn how they are to think and act when there is question of those schemes which have for their end the union in one body, whatsoever be the manner, of all who call themselves Christians.

8. This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ.

9. These pan-Christians who turn their minds to uniting the churches seem, indeed, to pursue the noblest of ideas in promoting charity among all Christians: nevertheless how does it happen that this charity tends to injure faith? Everyone knows that John himself, the Apostle of love, who seems to reveal in his Gospel the secrets of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and who never ceased to impress on the memories of his followers the new commandment "Love one another," altogether forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt version of Christ's teaching: "If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you"[18]. For which reason, since charity is based on a complete and sincere faith, the disciples of Christ must be united principally by the bond of one faith. 10. So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it.

re: a man whom the KGB tried to kill that was released from the Soviet Union at the request of Pope John Paul II, ....

Good for the man that he was released. Who knows why they released him? As for taking the credit for his release, who knows if it really was JPII? Here's another JPII "anti-communist" story, that can be verified:

"Double Standard" Update - Vatican Coddles Schismatic Chinese "Bishops"

It took the Vatican about 72 hours to declare excommunicated Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the four bishops he consecrated without a papal mandate on June 30, 1988. Whether one agrees with his decision or not, Lefebvre acted for what he thought was the best interest of the faithful, consecrating four bishops to preserve the traditional Mass and sacraments in a time of "diabolical disorientation" in the Church, to recall Sister Lucy’s memorable phrase.

Indeed, the Church’s Code of Canon Law exempts from penalties such as excommunication one who acts out of what he believes is necessity, even if his good faith belief might be mistaken. (Can. 1323 (4), (7)). And, moreover, Lefebvre and the four bishops declared sincerely that they accept the legitimate authority of Pope John Paul II.

Compare the Vatican’s treatment of the schismatic bishops of the so-called "Patriotic Catholic Association" (PCA) of Red China, created by Mao Tse-Tung in 1957 to replace the true Catholic Church, which that monster had driven underground. Since 1957 the PCA has consecrated not four, but one hundred bishops without a papal mandate, many of these during the reign of John Paul II. These schismatic prelates are required by the regime in Beijing explicitly to renounce any allegiance to Rome and to promote the Red Chinese population control policy of compulsory contraception and, when that fails, forced abortion. These illicit bishops thus promote mortal sins and gross deviations from the infallible teaching of the Church on faith and morals.

What do we find but that, far from declaring these "bishops" excommunicated, the Vatican apparatus has recognized about two-thirds of them as legitimate. This according to an article in the journal Civilta Cattolica, which is vetted by the Vatican Secretary of State — "Pope" Sodano I — before publication. According to CWNews.com (March 5, 2004) "of the 79 bishops [still] serving the ‘official’ [PCA] Church, 49 have at least de facto recognition from the Vatican."

CWNews further reports that "Informed Vatican officials have indicated that many bishops of the ‘official’ Church have quietly established contacts with the Holy See. The Civilta Cattolica report now indicates that the clear majority have been recognized by Rome." At the same time, however, the loyal Catholic bishops of the underground Church "reproach the Patriotic Catholic Association for its dependence on the government, and its failure to maintain ties with the universal Church."

So, the Vatican recognizes the same schismatic (not to mention heretical) pro-abortion "bishops" which the loyal Catholic bishops driven underground in China refuse to join because these schismatic prelates have sworn their allegiance to a government-controlled, communist pseudo-Church.

Marcel Lefebvre and four traditional Catholic bishops were pronounced excommunicated within 72 hours, while at least 49 pro-abortion schismatic bishops, hand-picked and totally controlled by a communist regime, are recognized by the same Vatican apparatus that declared Lefebvre excommunicated. Such is the state of the Catholic Church today.

By the way, only five days after the reports of Vatican recognition of the schismatic PCA bishops surfaced, Bishop Wei Jingyi, of the "underground" Diocese of Qiqihar — that is, the true Catholic diocese of that region — was arrested by communist thugs. In response, "the Holy See expressed its ‘concern and sadness’ … and requested explanations from the authorities." (Zenit, March 10, 2004)

Concern and sadness, you say! Explanations, you say? And what possible "explanation" could the Vatican be expecting from "the authorities" in China? The Red Chinese have arrested another loyal Catholic prelate as part of their continuing persecution of the true Catholic Church in China. That is the explanation.

The Vatican Press Office added this ringing defense of the arrested bishop: "Whatever accusations there might be against the arrested bishop, they should be made public, as happens in every State of law …"

Good grief. A loyal bishop is arrested by communist goons and the Vatican demands, not his immediate release, but only publication of the charges? What sort of limp-wristed nonsense is this? And since when is Red China a "State of law" as opposed to a brutal, utterly lawless dictatorship?

What an utterly nonsensical — no, utterly obscene — situation this is. The Vatican recognizes 49 communist-controlled schismatic bishops, even as the loyal Catholic bishops of the underground Church in China are being persecuted. The Vatican thus makes a mockery of the martyrdom of these loyal prelates. For what reason have they suffered, if the false prelates of the false church they refuse to join are granted Vatican recognition? They have suffered, of course, because they would rather die than join the schismatic communist-controlled bishops of the CPA—even if certain Vatican bureaucrats no longer seem to know what real schism and heresy consist of. The same bureaucrats declare excommunicated Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the four staunchly traditional bishops he consecrated, even as they recognize the legitimacy of bishops illicitly consecrated for a "church" created by the devil himself through Mao Tse Tung.

If what we are seeing today is not the great apostasy foretold in Sacred Scripture, then what would be? Now we can see why Cardinal Mario Luigi Ciappi said that "In the Third Secret (of Fatima) it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top." What we see around us, dear reader, must be precisely what the Third Secret of Fatima foretold. And that, we can be sure, is why the Vatican apparatus of "Pope" Sodano I has yet to reveal the words of Our Lady which follow Her fateful phrase: "In Portugal the dogma of the faith will always be preserved, etc."

According to what you are posting on this thread, two wrongs make a right.

Is this the new Gospel of the followers of SSPX?

Additionally, Jesus said: Love your enemy.

If Pope John Paul II is guilty of showing love for his enemies, then Jesus must have been wrong.

The disobedient archbishop was far wiser than Jesus.

And it is far more important to say rituals in dead languages than to have the faithful be involved in Divine Rituals? Right?

Latin was the common language of the Roman Empire. That was why it was used then. Greek was also used for the writing of scripture, as many educated people knew Greek.

Maybe the SSPX believes in promoting the Gospelof Hate. That is what is evident in this thread. The hate that is in the hearts of SSPX.

The hate that appears to be in hearts of those in SSPX. The grudges that SSPX carries in their hearts.

Someone who causes a schism: is that a good thing? Then maybe Martin Luther should be declared a saint for his causing a schism.

Where was the effort on the disobedient archbishop to rectify the schism?

Why were the four candidates for Bishop qualified? Because they were 30 years old? Known of them that I am aware of had much experience. I doubt if any of the four were Canon Lawyers and held a JCL.

My simple take on Pope John Paul II:

When he became Pope, there was a functional majority of bishops in the world, and a near unanimity of bishops in the United States who were in outright disobedience, and the gravest of heresies. The Soviet Union was seeming triumphant, and the Curia’s method of handling them was ostpolitick. And priests raping children was practically par for the course, but the laity were too ashamed and frightened to speak out. Vocations had dropped 90%, and most of the Catholic world outside Europe was dependent on Marxist missionaries for their sacraments.

By midpoint in his papacy, the rate of sexual abuse was down 97%. No bishop in America dared defend birth control, let alone homosexuality or abortion. The Soviet union was on the ash-heap of history. The decline of vocations had stabilized in the first world, and third-world nations were sending missionaries into America and Europe to spread the gospel.

I think Assissi was a tragic mistake. I’d like to imagine that St. Paul would have called him out on the carpet, as he did St. Peter when St. Peter was tolerating the Judaizers. But on the balance, I think John Paul II did an amazing job. Let’s not forget that St. Peter is regarded as among the greatest of saints, not a heretic; his misjudgment does not provide evidence against his infallibility. And if I were a tiny fraction the great man John Paul was, spiritual pride would endanger my soul.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.