Vatican sources say second miracle approved for John Paul II
#61
(07-01-2013, 12:14 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: Except that it comes from the Church. The Church is our sure guide, so we aren't led astray by her. Catholicism isn't Assisi. That was one event. But the general ecumenical trend is from the Church. She does not lead us astray, but is the built on solid ground. On a rock called Christ. I believe in that.

Not all that the Church (understood in its human aspect) does is from Christ. You should know that, and so should anyone who is even slightly versed in the history of the Church. So, please stop trying to imply that because I think Assisi was a great evil I somehow disbelieve in Christ's promises to the Church.

There is simply no justification in Scripture, Tradition, or Magisterium for a Roman Pontiff to invite pagans to celebrate their rites in a place consecrated to Catholic worship. If you believe there is then I'd be interested to see your examples.

But, really, the only justification that you seem to be offering is: "The circumstances called for it ergo it was good". Where is the supernatural perspective?
Reply
#62
I keep thinking of Bacon's statement concerning false religious unity: "all colours agree in the dark". Which is as much to say that where the supernatural perspective is missing a false religion may seem good insofar as it promotes certain natural aims. However, from the supernatural perspective a false religion is something repugnant and its rites displeasing to God.

But, really, is this is even the case here? Has the Prayer Meeting in Assisi brought peace in its wake? Of course, we cannot know counterfactuals, but I would say that the world is in a much worse state than it was 1986. Christians are being massacred in the Middle East and once-Christian countries are introducing laws that would have been unimaginable 27 years ago.

And then why did the Pope invite non-Catholics - and pagans to boot - to pray and perform their rites in Assisi for peace when he, according to the repeated statements of some, had already made that Consecration in 1984 to which the promise of peace had been attached by the Mother of God? Did he not believe her?
Reply
#63
Soviet Communism is all but dead. The nuclear threat is still there, but not as imminent as it was when I was young. We haven't had another world war. 1916 and 1939 was just 23 years. We've gone 68 years without a world war. Also the religious front has improved dramatically amongst Christians. We talk with one another. We have many high profile converts. Excellent improvements with the Orthodox. And even though relations with Muslims are quite bad, we even have Muslim groups speak out against their own, and for us, when they commit atrocities.

So, yes, there isn't peace. We know true peace doesn't come through mere dialog or prayer gatherings. It, however, has improved conditions to achieve a workable situation in which to further peace, and allowed a debate on key issues. Somehow if it isn't utter peace then it is considered failure. That is a typical disregard of partial gains because they aren't the whole enchilada. The world situation is quite grim, but it could have been worse. And that is why someone like JPII was decisive. He came at a cusp point, a turning point, in the world, and he was decisive. I think his pontificate turned the corner in the collapse of Western civilization which has slowly gone on since the age of nominalism. So yes, it is bad. In fact it gets real bad before it really gets better, but evil puts up a fight, and the age of restoration must have its birth pangs. Because of this adherence to truth, and the willingness to charitably dialog about differences, the Church will be the guiding light of our age, as other paths grow cold.
Reply
#64
(06-27-2013, 10:55 AM)Scotus Wrote: Sctiptorium,

How, then, are we to understand the following statement of the late Pope?
Quote:“In the Holy Spirit, every individual and all people have become, through the Cross and Resurrection of Christ, children of God, partakers in the divine nature and heirs to eternal life.”
John Paul II, Message to the Peoples of Asia, Manila, February 21, 1981.

How can we understand this other than the Pope is saying that each person is in a state of sanctifying grace regardless of whether he has been baptised or committed mortal sin?

I would add that our most recent Pope, Pope Francis, has alluded to the same thing when he spoke of atheists as "first class children of God".
Reply
#65
(06-19-2013, 12:50 PM)Scotus Wrote:
(06-19-2013, 12:33 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: Good! This is one of the best things that could happen to the traditional movement at this time; let the lines be drawn where they will.

And things are going to get an awful lot harder for those of us who do not hold to the sedevacantist thesis and yet do not believe that the late Pope should be canonised without at least some statement from the magisterium that he is not being canonised because of the many problematic things he said and did (Assisi 1986 and 2002, active participation in an Animist rite in 1985, kissing the Qur'an, invoking the protection of St John the Baptist upon Islam, etc) but despite them.

My husband has just asked me if I'm sure I don't believe in sedevacantism.........

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)