|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 27, 2019 12:38:24 GMT
Pope praises document about God willing diversity of religions in ‘interreligious dialogue’ speech
November 26, 2019 ( LifeSiteNews) – Pope Francis has once again promoted the Abu Dhabi document “ Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together” at a meeting organized in Rome by an Argentinian group under the auspices of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue.” Part of the document, which was signed in February by the Pope and a Grand Imam, states that a “pluralism and diversity” of religions is “willed by God.”On November 18, the Pope addressed the participants of the meeting during a private audience in the Vatican, in the presence of the Argentinian ambassador to the Holy See, Rogelio Pfirter, its promoter, in collaboration with the “Instituto de Diálogo Interreligioso” (Institute of Interreligious Dialogue, IDI) of Buenos Aires of which he was himself the initiator in 2002, as Cardinal-Archbishop Jorge Bergoglio. During a meeting on November 15, attended by Cardinal Miguel Ayuso and Cardinal Pietro Parolin, Father Guillermo Marcó of IDI made a “historic announcement” saying that in Argentina a council is being formed between the bishops’ conference, the Jewish center AMIA, the Islamic Center of the Argentinian Republic, the Argentinian Federation of Evangelical Churches, and the Institute of Interreligious Dialogue.Pope Francis especially congratulated the group for having focused on the Abu Dhabi document during its discussions, without expressing any reservations regarding its erroneous claim that “the pluralism and the diversity of religions, color, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom.” Instead, he declared himself “pleased to note that this document, which is universal in nature, is also being disseminated in the Americas.” “I am convinced that the particularity and sensitivity of different countries and continents can truly contribute to a detailed reading of this document and to a greater and more effective understanding of the message it conveys,” he said. Among those present were Rabbi Daniel Goldman, Sheikh Omar Abboud and Father Guillermo Marcó, a Catholic priest, as well as the current Argentinian secretary for religious affairs and the president of the Islamic center of Buenos Aires. Pope Francis was therefore addressing representatives of Judaism, Protestantism, and Islam when he proclaimed: While some forms of “interreligious dialogue” focus on temporal issues, with the aim of avoiding hostility or bloodshed among believers or promoting natural law together, Pope Francis calls for “unity that transcends the mere political pact.”
He quoted a “very wise man, a very wise European politician” whom he said spoke to him about the Abu Dhabi declaration last February in these terms: The Yalta Pact divided the world that had emerged from the Second World War into two zones of influence under the winners of the global conflict: that of America on the one hand and that of Soviet Russia on the other. It left hundreds of millions of people in that country under the heel of communist power. The “peace” that was brokered abandoned large parts of Eastern Europe to Stalin’s “influence” and prepared communism’s total domination in East Germany, Poland, Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, and the Baltic States…
The invocation of Yalta as a model, albeit an imperfect one, is surprising if not insulting to the memory of the innumerable victims of communist tyranny after the Second World War.
Pope Francis told the group that “the world observes us, believers, to see what our attitude is to the common home and to human rights” – the “common home” is the expression used by environmentalists who accuse humanity of being responsible for “global warming” and ecological catastrophes – and said collaboration among believers and non-believers is necessary to respond effectively to war, hunger, poverty, “the environmental crisis” and that of the family, and so on. “And, above all, the lack of hope.” Pope Francis’ speech showed he believes there is a new element at play since the signature of the Abu Dhabi document: The operative words are: “From now on … ” The Pope said in substance that religions must be prepared to adapt to a situation where they maintain their “identity” while accepting to modify their attitudes in favor of world peace and prosperity.
His later comments explain what can be understood from these words. Innumerable documents emanating from the United Nations or from UNESCO do just that: they accuse national traditions and historic religions of being responsible for hate and conflict within humanity. The point of “interreligious dialogue” that rests on the false premise that true and false religions can find a common denominator to which all can subject their particular sets of beliefs, is here to put all religions and spiritualities on a similar plane.
What is new – “from now on” – is the formal acknowledgment of the relativistic attitude that says all men can find God through their particular religion while at the same time cooperating with other religions for the really important things: fighting against “global warming,” for instance. The Pope went on to say “dialogue among religions” is “about changing historical attitudes.” “A scene from The Song of Roland comes to me as a symbol, when the Christians defeat the Muslims and put them all in line in front of the baptismal font, and one with a sword. And Muslims had to choose between baptism or the sword. That is what we Christians did. It was a mentality that today we cannot accept, nor understand, nor can it work anymore,” Pope Francis said.
The Song of Roland is actually a medieval “ chanson de geste” – or epic poem – with its legendary overtones and disregard for historical reality. The scene evoked by Pope Francis never took place: Charlemagne never conquered Zaragoza as the Song of Roland proclaims, nor were Roland and his knights killed by the Moors at Roncesvalles, but by Basque highlanders, as Bernard Antony, president of the French Christian defense league AGRIF recalled on his blog. Antony commented: Antony deplored that instead of choosing a true example of Christian culpability, Pope Francis should have “ignorantly and stupidly attacked one of our cultural roots.” The cultural roots of France but also of England, since the first known written version of the epic Song of Roland is the Oxford Manuscript of 1170. Instead, in his concluding remarks to the Interreligious Dialogue group from Buenos Aires, Pope Francis said, “Beware of the fundamentalist groups: everyone has his own. In Argentina, too, there is a little fundamentalist corner. And let us try, with fraternity, to go forward. Fundamentalism is a scourge and all religions have some kind of fundamentalist first cousin there, which forms a group.”
Are “fundamentalists” those who believe their own religion to be true, to the exclusion of all others? In the light of the Abu Dhabi document, it would seem so.The Instituto del Diálogo Interreligioso of Buenos Aires, a civil association, was founded by Cardinal Bergoglio in 2002 as the “crystallization of the interreligious experience that started when, as spokesman for the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires, he organized the first ever visit of a bonaerense Archbishop to the Islamic Center of the Argentinian Republic,” of which Omar Abboud was then the Cultural Secretary. A similar exchange took place with the Bet-El community where Goldman has been the chief rabbi for 25 years. Pope Francis has maintained links with the Institute since he was elected to the Chair of Peter.In March 2018, IDI participated in the “Dawn of Interspirituality Conference” in Costa Rica that included representatives of many religions. The event was organized by the Satyana Institute founded in 1996 to promote training programs in “ecopsychology” and “gender reconciliation” as well as “women’s spiritual mastery.” During that event, Father Thomas Keating, a Trappist monk and “pioneer” of interreligious dialogue from Massachusetts (see his obituary here), told the participants: “You are invited to take a step into the unknown, toward a possible future that can only be imagined, when the religions of the world truly meet each other.” IDI proudly speaks of its presence at that meeting, which was also attended by Fr. Marcó, one of its co-founders. It gave a conference in Moscow on November 11 at the State Pedagogic University.
[Emphasis mine.]
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 27, 2019 13:29:10 GMT
Once again we see Pope Francis promoting an aggressive implementation of Vatican II. Though we know that these 'inter-religious dialogues' (saturated with a false ecumenism) did not suddenly begin with Pope Francis but rather were begun by Pope Paul VI and really took on momentum with the Assisi ecumenical meetings under Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Pope Francis is merely continuing the work of his predecessors.
This is in no way an attempt to sanitize his words or actions. They are grievous and offensive to Almighty God and one shudders to think of the accounting he will have to render before the Judgement seat of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
But it interesting that when Pope Benedict XVI acted on the same Conciliar principles, it was not a shock to souls because he cleverly kept a veneer of conservatism. But with Pope Francis, there is no mask, no affectation, no masquerade; he hides behind nothing but rather employs a bold and unapologetic implementation of the modernist errors, cemented in Vatican II, which were strongly condemned by his better predecessors.
To highlight this, here are a few excerpts from the Council documents themselves (with short commentaries explaining them taken from the SiSiNoNo series on the Errors of Vatican II) that demonstrate that these Conciliar popes are 'simply' acting on the errors therein:
On other religions, particularly the Islamic and Jewish religions
- ... inconceivably awarding the marks of truth and holiness to all the non-Christian religions, whereas they do not contain revealed truth, but are the fruit of the human spirit and, so, neither redeem nor save anyone.
Nostra Aetate §2 states:
It is necessary to note the contradiction in the above, noting too its decidedly Deist tone. That is, if these religions "differ... in many particulars" from the Catholic Church's teaching, how can they "often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men"? This means that, for the Council, the truth "which enlightens all men" perhaps comes through rules and teachings that differ "in many particulars" from the Church's teaching!
- In Lumen Gentium §16, the statement:
This statement falsely attributes adoration of our God to the Moslems, and includes them, per se, in the plan of salvation. This statement is contrary to dogma because those who do not worship the true God are not included in the plan of salvation. ...
Lumen Gentium §16's recognition of Islam is repeated in an even more detailed and gravely erroneous way in the Declaration Nostra Aetate's §3:
This goes so far as to state that the God in whom the Moslems believe "has spoken to men"! Therefore, by this does the Council demonstrate that it views as authentic the "revelation" transmitted by Mohammed in the Koran? If so, isn't this implicit apostasy from the Christian faith, given that the "revelation" in the Koran specifically contradicts all of Christianity's basic truths? ...
Vatican II praise of the Moslems' profession of the "faith" of Abraham, as if it constitutes a quality linking them to us, obscures the truth, since we know that the Abraham of the Koran, who is infused with a legendary and apocryphal quality, does not correspond to the real Abraham, who is evidently the Abraham of the Bible. This, because the Koran attributes a "pure monotheism" or anti-Trinitarianism, anterior to Judaic and Christian monotheism, to Abraham. Thus, as an Arab prophet and a descendant of Abraham thanks to Israel, Mohammed would have been sent in order to restore this pure monotheism by liberating it from the so-called Jewish and Christian falsifications!
Nostra Aetate §3 seems to praise the Moslems and to present them as an example to Catholics because
The article concludes:
Historical facts are also overturned here, since the bloody, long, and cruel battles, faith against faith, that we have had to launch over the course of the centuries to repulse Islam's assault, are adroitly reduced to the size of simple "quarrels and hostilities." Passed over in silence are the abysmal differences that exist between Catholic and Moslem eschatology (the absence of a Beatific Vision, the luxury of paradise, the eternity of infernal punishments reserved only for infidels), as well as the abysmal differences between our and their conception of "moral life" and of "veneration": Islam is a religion which not only allows unacceptable moral structures, such as polygamy, with all of its corollaries, but also alleges to guarantee salvation simply by carrying out legalistic practices of worship: therefore, it is an exterior and legalist religion, even more so than Pharisaism, expressly condemned by our Lord (cf. Mt. 6:5).
All of this is passed over in silence in order to invite us into collaboration that is impossible for the simple reason that the meaning the Moslems give to the words "social justice," "peace," "freedom," etc., is merely that which can be drawn from the Koran or from the words and deeds of Mohammed, a meaning established over the course of the centuries by "orthodox" interpretation: an Islamic meaning totally different from our own. For example, Moslems do not understand peace in the way that the currently reigning Pope understands it. They do not believe that Moslems can live under infidels. This is why they divide the world into two parts, one where Islam rules (the house of Islam) and the rest of the world, necessarily an enemy unless it converts and submits (house of war), the rest of the world with whom the Islamic community believes itself to be perpetually at war. Therefore, for them, peace is not an end in itself that allows them to coexist with different nations and religions; it is only a means, imposed by circumstances which oblige them to make truces with infidels. But the truce must have a limited duration; it must never exceed ten years; and every time they have the means, then war must be resumed. For the Moslem, this is a juridical, religious, and moral obligation. It is in force until the final, inevitable battle that results in the installation of a world Islamic State.
- In Nostra Aetate §4, the propositions:
Necessary to note here is the attempt to limit the responsibility for Deicide to a small group of quasi private individuals, whereas the Sanhedrin, the supreme religious authority, represented all of Judaism. Therefore, in the rejection of the Messiah and Son of God, it had collective responsibility for the Jewish religion and the Jewish people, and this irrefutably is stated in Holy Scripture: "And from then on, Pilate was looking for a way to release him. But the Jews cried out, saying, 'If thou release this man, thou are no friend of Caesar; for everyone who makes himself king sets himself against Caesar'" (Jn. 19:12); and "And all of the people answered and said, 'His blood be on us and our children'" (Mt. 27:25).
Also striking is the statement that "the Jews should not be presented as repudiated or cursed by God, as if such views followed from the holy Scriptures." This lacks the necessary distinction between individuals and the Jewish religion. If the subject is individual Jews, the statement is true, and is exemplified by the great number of converts from Judaism in all eras. But if the subject is Judaism as a religion, the assertion is both erroneous and illogical: erroneous, because it contradicts the evangelical texts and the Church's constant faith from her origins. (Cf. Mt. 21:43: "Therefore I say to you, that the Kingdom of God will be taken away from you and will be given to a people yielding its fruits.") And it is illogical, because if God did not reject the Jewish religion or the Jewish people in the religious sense (which in Jesus' time was one and the same thing), then the Old Testament has to be viewed as being still valid, and contiguous and concurrent with the New Testament. This, then, would sanction the unjustified awaiting of the Messiah, a hope still entertained by today's Jews! All of this is a totally lying representation of Judaism and its relationship to Christianity.
On the 'human family' and 'dialogue' with other religions
- A definition of love of country that flows more with the meaning of humanitarianism and Masonic fraternity than the traditional Catholic meaning:
Catholic tradition has never seen in "the human family" any value superior to that which is inherent in Christian societies and nations, which, on the contrary, must be defended-sometimes militarily-against the assault of a world hostile to Christ (for example in the case of Islamic expansion into Europe).
- Dignitatis Humanae [DH] §3, the following:
This principle causes the truth "in matters religious" to be something that is "discovered," found by the conscientious individual via inquiry done with "others," through reciprocal "communication and dialogue." In this process of inquiry, "others" are not simply other Catholics, but others in general, all other men, no matter what their faith, who, significantly, have for their object the divine law, etc....placed by God in our hearts, the eternal law of natural morality, as do Deists. In fact, by including everyone, revealed Truth cannot be the object, and this revealed Truth is denied in toto by non-Christians and, in part, by heretics.
This doctrinal statement openly contradicts traditional teaching legislating that, for Catholics, in "religious matters" (and also in moral ones), God reveals the truth, and it is conserved in the deposit of the Faith safeguarded by the Magisterium. It is a truth that requires and necessitates the consent of our intellect and will, a consent possible with the determinant help of grace: the believer must recognize and accede to it. Thus, he cannot "find" it through his own efforts. The conciliar document does not speak of the Holy Spirit's help. Moreover, the conciliar document recommends communal inquiry with heretics, non-Christians and unbelievers!
- And finally, and most importantly,
According to the above stated idea, Catholicism is also defined as being one among "religious bodies," on a completely equal level with other groups. According to the Council, then, the result is that revealed Religion's "special virtue" is not to cause itself to occupy a position of absolute supremacy in relation to other religions, which are not revealed! This amounts to stating that all other religions have the same right to public worship as does Catholicism. This openly contradicts Proposition 78 of the Syllabus of Errors which condemned this right.
This is a grave doctrinal deviation because it gives error the same rights as the one revealed Truth, thus making the difference between truth and error, as well as the difference between light and darkness, disappear for believers. The meaning of the Church's constant teaching was that there is practical tolerance of false religions, who are understood to be in a position necessarily juridically inferior relative to the one Revealed Religion. This tolerance originated from reasons traceable to social peace and public order, and had the reservation that such worship would not include any immoral elements. And in fact the Pope, in his States and throughout Christendom, always tolerated Jewish worship, protecting it against possible over-zealousness, opposition, and attempts to persecute it: but this was a matter of tolerating an error, not of papal recognition of the same freedom of expression accorded to the authentic, revealed truth.
There are many other excerpts from Vatican II that could be included here to make the point that despite the many erroneous words and actions of the Conciliar popes, they are simply implementing Vatican II principles. We cannot judge whether or not they do so with full, pernicious knowledge of these errors. As Pope St. Pius X wrote in Pascendi we cannot judge the internal disposition of the soul "of which God alone is the Judge." We can only beseech Heaven, especially through the Immaculate Heart of Mary, to reverse this terrible crisis afflicting the Church, though knowing that it has been foretold by Her at La Salette and elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 27, 2019 13:42:08 GMT
“Ecumenism is not the Church’s mission. The Church is not ecumenical, she is missionary. The goal of the missionary Church is to convert. The goal of the ecumenical Church is to find what is true in errors and to remain at this level. It is to deny the truth of the Church.” (April 14, 1978)
- “… and this, it is really the modern heresy, that we can really designate under this new term, for it really seems that there is a new heresy in addition to modernism, liberalism, and all those old errors, it seems to me that we can define this modern error: ecumenism, this false ecumenism.” (Conference at Econe, May 16, 1978)
- “Then came this abominable ecumenism which is nothing but the means to penetrate liberal ideas within the Church, because it is the principle of Religious Liberty, a principle which is in the constitution, in the Declaration of Human Rights.” (Conference, December 21, 1984)
- "We want to be in perfect unity with the Holy Father, but in the unity of the Catholic Faith, because there is only this unity that can unite us. But not this kind of ecumenical union, a sort of liberal ecumenism, because I think this is what best defines modern tendencies and what we could almost express as the 'modern heresy.' As I had the occasion to say in Essen, I think that what best defines the whole crisis in the Church is really this liberal ecumenical spirit. I say liberal ecumenism because there is a certain ecumenism that, if properly defined, could be acceptable. But liberal ecumenism, such as is practiced by the present Church and especially since Vatican II, necessarily carries true heresies." (Conference of April 14, 1978)
- “The Church, in the course of the 1960's, thus during the Council, acquired values that have come from outside the Church, from the liberal culture - due secoli - from two centuries of liberal culture. It is clear: these are the "rights" of man, it is Religious Freedom, it is Ecumenism. It is Satanic.” (Conference, December 13, 1984)
- “In this world, there are forces opposed to Our Lord, and to his reign. Satan and all the auxiliaries of Satan, conscious or unconscious, refuse this reign, this way of salvation and fight for the destruction of the Church. Thus the Church is engaged by her Divine Founder in a gigantic combat. All means were and are employed by Satan to triumph. One of the last, extremely efficacious stratagems is to destroy the combative spirit of the Church by persuading her that there are no more enemies, and that we must put down our arms and enter into a dialogue of peace and cordiality. This fallacious truce will permit the enemy to penetrate everywhere and corrupt the forces of the Church. This truce is liberal ecumenism, a diabolical instrument of auto-destruction of the Church. This liberal ecumenism will result in the neutralisation of the arms which are the liturgy with the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Sacraments, the breviary, the liturgical feasts, the neutralisation and ceasing of the seminaries…” (Archbishop Lefebvre to Cardinal Seper)
- Jesus is not optional. “Qui non est mecum, contra me est—He that is not with Me is against Me” (Mt. 12:30). To deny this is the fundamental error of religious liberty and ecumenism. Lefebvre, Marcel, Spiritual Journey. Kansas City: Angelus Press, E-Book
- And by this very fact, this “Mystery of our Faith” [the traditional Mass] overwhelms all the errors of Protestantism, Islam, Judaism, Modernism, and materialistic, socialist and communist secularism. No error can withstand our holy Catholic Mass. The Mass is anti ecumenical, in the sense of ecumenism practiced since the Council: namely, the union of all religions in an amalgam of prayer without dogma, without morality, without specific laws, and agreement based on a few ambiguous slogans like “the rights of man,” “the dignity of man,” “religious liberty.” On the contrary, the Novus Ordo is precisely the banner of this false ecumenism, representing the annihilation of the Catholic religion and the Catholic priesthood. (Letter to Friends and Benefactors, February 1982)
- Satan, the father of lies, as Our Lord Jesus calls him, has the extraordinary talent of finding out some words, to which he assigns a new meaning so that from their ambiguity, he achieves acceptance of the destructive falsehood which overthrows the best established societies. He found it in this “ecumenism” of the Council which has created an ecumenical liturgy, an ecumenical Bible, and ecumenical catechism, uniting truth and falsehood – marrying the true and the false. The most disastrous result of this marriage is the Catholic-Protestant Mass, the poisoned source afterwards yielding countless ravages: relinquishment of the Church, of the true Faith, sacrileges, tearing of the unity of the Church, proliferation of diverse sorts of creeds unworthy of the Church. But, there exists a consequence of which one does not often enough ponder on. It is the destruction of the Catholic nations which no longer find in the Holy Mass, the source of political unity based on the unity of the Catholic Faith. Therefore, the Catholic nation hereafter must, in like manner, convert itself to an ecumenical state – pluralistic, very soon finding itself securalized and neutral, if not atheistic. The ecumencial Mass leads logically to apostasy. One cannot serve two masters, one cannot nourish oneself indifferently from truth or falsehood. It is falsehood that flatters our evil inclinations which will prevail over truth which is more austere and more demanding. One must, at all costs, remain bound to truth without mingling. Pope Pius IX vigorously denounced these liberal Catholics who believe they can unite falsehood and truth, good and evil, in order to please their contemporary fellowmen. Whether this poisoned ecumenism reaches us through the hierarchy or not, the channel is not important – it is the poison that one must refuse to swallow. It is a matter of strict obedience to our Lord Jesus Christ, to the Church of all times, to all the successors of Peter. We will, therefore, keep the Catholic liturgy, the Catholic Bible and catechism. ... Each one, at his time in the Church, must endeavour to remain Catholic and to maintain the Catholic Church. It is upon this resolution and its realisation that we will be judged by Our Divine Lord. (Letter to Friends and Benefactors, March 1978)
|
|
