Catechism of the Crisis in the Church, Pt. 14
51) How should the prayer meeting of religions at Assisi be judged?
The prayer meeting of religions held at Assisi on October 27, 1986, was an unprecedented scandal, leading souls into error.1 It was also a sin against the First Commandment of God: “I am the Lord thy God; thou shalt not have strange gods before me.” Never had the Church been so humiliated as when the Pope put himself on the same level as the heads of all the religions and sects. So doing, he gave the impression that the Catholic Church is but one religious community amongst many others that must work together to establish peace on earth–as if there could be another peace than in the conversion of men to Christ and His Church!
You must not consent to be yoke-fellows with unbelievers. What is there in common between light and darkness? What harmony between Christ and Belial? How can a believer throw in his lot with an infidel? How can the temple of God have any commerce with idols? (II Cor. 6:14-16)2
How did the Pope put himself on the same level as the heads of all the false religions and sects?
During his welcome address, which took place in Notre Dame Basilica, the Pope was seated on the same kind of chair as the heads of the other religions. Everything that might have given the impression of the Pope’s precedence was avoided; all had to appear to be equals.
Did not the Pope make a profession of his faith in Jesus Christ at Assisi?
The Pope gave witness to his personal faith in Jesus Christ; but, despite the command given by Christ in sending His Apostles on their mission, he did not ask the representatives of these religions to convert to Christ. To the contrary, he invited them to pray to their false gods:
We shall go from here to our separate places of prayer. Each religion will have the time and opportunity to express itself in its own traditional rite. Then from these separate places of prayer, we will walk in silence towards the lower Square of Saint Francis. Once gathered in the Square, again each religion will be able to present its own prayer, one after the other.
Having thus prayed separately, we shall meditate in silence on our own responsibility to work for peace. We shall then declare symbolically our commitment to peace. At the end of the Day, I shall try to express what this unique celebration will have said to my heart, as a believer in Jesus Christ and the first servant of the Catholic Church.3
Afterwards, were not efforts made to convert to Christ the representatives of the different religions?
Not only was nothing done at Assisi for the conversion of non-Christians, but Cardinal Etchegaray even declared on the square of St. Francis’s Basilica that it was very important that the members of the different religions remain faithful to their false faith:
We come from numerous religious traditions across the world; we are meeting together in total fidelity to our own religious traditions, quite conscious of the identity of the involvement of everyone in his own faith. We are gathered here without any trace of syncretism. This is what makes for the richness and value of this prayer meeting.4
Did non-Christian religious worship take place during the World Day of Prayer at Assisi?
Not only did non-Christian worship take place publicly, but places of Catholic worship were placed at the disposition of the false religions. When one considers that a Catholic church is a sacred place consecrated uniquely to the worship of the most Blessed Trinity, one cannot but think of the “abomination of desolation” announced by Christ (Mt. 24:15).
But didn’t the Vatican nonetheless scrupulously avoid common prayer of Christians with non-Christians, and specify that it was not a matter of praying together, but of being together to pray? 5
This formula seems more like a temporary concession made to the opponents of the meeting at Assisi than the expression of the Pope’s thought. As early as 1979, in his inaugural encyclical Redemptor Hominis, John Paul II announced his intention of establishing “prayer in common” with the members of other religions.6 In any case, the simple fact of publicly promoting the practice of false religions, with the implication that they are pleasing to God, is already an enormous scandal even if one does not participate in it directly. God has often shown that He holds false religions in abomination, and especially idolatry, the summum of all superstitions.
Can it not be said that John Paul II encouraged these prayers and worship as expressions of natural religion, and not as false religions?
The gathering at Assisi was not a matter of individual prayer, of man in his personal relationship with God, but rather of the prayer of the divers religions as such, with their own rites addressed to their particular divinities. These cults, being the public expression of false beliefs, are, in and of themselves, insults proffered to God. Moreover, Sacred Scripture, in both the Old and the New Testaments, teaches that the only prayer pleasing to God is the prayer of the one He has established as the sole mediator between Himself and men, our Lord Jesus Christ, and that this prayer is only to be found in the true religion.
Didn’t John Paul II attempt to justify his initiative at Assisi?
John Paul II tried several times to justify the meeting at Assisi, particularly in the speech he addressed to the cardinals on December 22, 1986.
What is most striking in the speech of December 22?
What is most striking about this speech is that the Pope cites the Second Vatican Council 35 times without mentioning any other magisterial document. He notably asserts that “the appropriate key to understanding so great an event is found in the teaching of the Second Vatican Council.”7 He elaborates:
The event of Assisi can thus be considered as a visible illustration, an object lesson, a catechesis understandable by all, of the presuppositions and signification of our commitment to the ecumenism and interreligious dialogue recommended and promoted by the Second Vatican Council.8
In this speech, how does John Paul II justify theologically the interreligious gathering at Assisi?
Besides the 35 references to Vatican II, John Paul II justifies the inter-religious prayer meeting of Assisi by asserting: “All authentic prayer is inspired by the Holy Ghost, who is mysteriously present in the heart of every man.”
What can be said about this statement?
This statement contains two affirmations, the first of which is ambiguous (“All authentic prayer is inspired by the Holy Ghost”), and the second is clearly false (“The Holy Ghost is mysteriously present in the heart of every man”).
Why is it ambiguous to assert that every authentic prayer is inspired by the Holy Ghost?
The sentence is ambiguous because its truth or falsehood depends on the meaning given to the word “authentic.” If by “authentic prayer” is meant a prayer in which a person really elevates his heart and mind to the one true God, then the sentence is undoubtedly true. But if it means “any sincere prayer,” it is seriously erroneous (the prayer of the Buddhist before an idol of Buddha, like that of the animist sorcerer or the terrorist Muslim, can be sincere, but that certainly does not mean that it is inspired by the Holy Ghost).
Why is it false to say that the Holy Ghost is mysteriously present in the heart of every man?
During a baptism, the priest commands the devil: “Depart from him, unclean spirit, and give place to the Holy Ghost, the Consoler.”9 This surely indicates that the Holy Ghost was not indwelling in that soul.
What may we conclude on this subject?
Clearly, a false proposition underlies the justification of the prayer meeting of religions at Assisi.
If John Paul II showed great respect for the false religions at Assisi, did these religions show a like respect for Catholicism?
The Muslims shamelessly took advantage of the meeting at Assisi to profess their faith in Allah as the only correct way. This is the prayer they offered for peace:
It is Thou whom we adore, it is Thou whom we implore. Lead us on the straight path, the path of those upon whom Thou dost bestow blessings and not of those who anger Thee or go astray.
Sura II:36 of the Koran followed:
Say: We believe in Allah and (in) that which had been revealed to us, and (in) that which was revealed to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and (in) that which was given to Moses and Jesus, and (in) that which was given to the prophets from their Lord. We do not make any distinction between any of them, and to Him do we submit.
The Muslims’ prayer for peace concluded with Sura 112, recited in Arabic by all the Muslims present:
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful. Say: He, Allah, is One. Allah is He on Whom all depend. He begets not, nor is He begotten. And none is like Him.10
What is remarkable about the Muslim prayers?
The assertions that God does not beget nor is He begotten and that they make no distinction amongst the prophets expressly take aim against the Catholic faith, which professes that Jesus Christ is not a prophet like the others, but the true Son of God, begotten by the Father before all ages.
How did the Assisi meeting conclude?
When all the delegations had completed their separate worship service for peace, they returned in silence like pilgrims to the Basilica of St. Francis, where each made a prayer for peace. In the speech closing the day, the Pope alluded to this procession:
While we have walked in silence, we have reflected on the path our human family treads: either in hostility, if we fail to accept one another in love; or as a common journey to our lofty destiny, if we realize that other people are our brothers and sisters. The very fact that we have come to Assisi from various quarters of the world is in itself a sign of this common path which humanity is called to tread. Either we learn to walk together in peace and harmony, or we drift apart and ruin ourselves and others. We hope that this pilgrimage to Assisi has taught us anew to be aware of the common origin and common destiny of humanity. Let us see in it an anticipation of what God would like the developing history of humanity to be: a fraternal journey in which we accompany one another towards the transcendent goal which he sets for us.11
What can be said about this speech?
We shall leave the commentary to a high dignitary of Freemasonry–Armando Corona, Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of the Vernal Equinox (Italy):
Our interconfessionalism earned us the excommunication declared by Clement XI in 1738. But the Church was surely in error, if it is true that on October 27, 1986, the current pontiff at Assisi gathered men from every religious confession to pray together for peace. What else were our brethren seeking when they gathered in our temples if not brotherly love, tolerance, solidarity, the defense of the dignity of the human person; considering themselves equals, above political creeds, religious creeds, and skin color?12
The ecumenism of Assisi meshes with the Masonic plan: the establishment of a great temple of universal brotherhood above religions and creeds, the “unity in diversity” so dear to the New Age movement and globalism.
52) What are the results of ecumenism?
The results of ecumenism are religious indifferentism and the ruin of the missions. Today the opinion is widespread among Catholics that one can save one’s soul equally well in any religion. Missionary work no longer makes sense, and it often happens that churchmen refuse to receive members of other religions into the Catholic Church in spite of their petitions. Missionary activity becomes an aid to socio-economic development. This is in flagrant opposition to the Lord’s command (Mt. 28:19):
Going therefore, teach all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.
Can you cite an example of an actual refusal to convert non-Catholics?
One unimaginable example of this ecumenism is the Balamand Declaration, signed June 23, 1993, at the conclusion of a meeting between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.13
In what context was this meeting at Balamand, Lebanon, held?
It is necessary to understand that since the Greek Schism, several parts of the Eastern Church were reunited to Rome. While keeping their Eastern Rite, they recognize the papal primacy, as did the entire Eastern Church before the schism. These Eastern Catholic Churches experienced a great expansion after the political changes that took place in the Soviet Union (many Orthodox were only in the schism as a result of external pressure and desired to be reunited with the See of Peter). One can comprehend the anger of the Orthodox authorities, who threatened to break off ecumenical relations. The Balamand conference was an attempt to salvage ecumenism.
What does the Balamand Declaration say?
In §8 of the Declaration, the Eastern Catholic Churches are called “a source of conflicts and of suffering.” It states that in order to justify its “proselytism”—that is to say, its efforts to bring the schismatics back to Catholic unity–“the Catholic Church developed the theological vision according to which she presented herself as the only one to whom salvation was entrusted” (§10). In other words, the constant teaching of the Church, according to which all Christians must be united to the pope, the Supreme Pastor, is reduced to a simple theological opinion developed to justify selfish interests.
How does the Balamand agreement conceive of the relations between the Catholic Church and the schismatics?
The Oriental schismatic Churches are henceforth considered as Sister Churches:
It is in this perspective that the Catholic Churches and the Orthodox Churches recognize each other as Sister Churches, responsible together for maintaining the Church of God in fidelity to the divine purpose, most especially in what concerns unity. According to the words of Pope John Paul II, the ecumenical endeavour of the Sister Churches of East and West, grounded in dialogue and prayer, is the search for perfect and total communion which is neither absorption nor fusion but a meeting in truth and love (cf. Slavorum Apostoli, n.27). (§14)
What are the consequences of the practical rules agreed to in the Balamand Declaration?
The Catholic Church expressly renounces trying to convert Oriental schismatics (§12). She even agrees to renounce creating Catholic organizations against the will of the Orthodox where none presently exists (§29). The Declaration concludes:
By excluding for the future all proselytism and all desire for expansion by Catholics at the expense of the Orthodox Church, the commission hopes that it has overcome the obstacles which impelled certain autocephalous Churches to suspend their participation in the theological dialogue and that the Orthodox Church will be able to find itself altogether again for continuing the theological work already so happily begun. (§35)
How might one summarize the Balamand accords?
In short, the Eastern Catholic Churches are considered to be an obstacle to ecumenism. Since, unfortunately, they exist, at the very least they must be forbidden to develop. This policy constitutes a betrayal of all the Christians who for centuries endured great sufferings and even martyrdom to remain faithful to the See of Peter. The churchmen sacrifice their own brothers in the faith solely to keep ecumenical dialogue with the Orthodox from stagnating.
What realistic assessment of ecumenical dialogue in general can we make?
Ultimately, ecumenical dialogue always turns to the detriment of the Catholic Church. It is always the Church that retreats and yields, while the other confessions and religions rejoice over the Church’s concessions without taking a single step towards truth.
53) Isn’t ecumenism required for the sake of fraternal charity?
Ecumenism as preached by Vatican II is not an exigency of fraternal charity, but rather a crime committed against it. True charity requires that one both desire and do good to one’s neighbor. In matters religious, this means leading one’s neighbor to the truth. It was an act of true charity when the missionaries of old left their countries, families and friends to go and preach Christ in foreign lands amidst unspeakable dangers and toil. Many laid down their lives, carried off by sickness or violence. Ecumenism, on the contrary, leaves men in their false religions and even confirms them in their errors. It abandons them to error and to the immense danger of losing their souls. While ecumenism may be more comfortable for its proponents than the missionary apostolate, it is not a sign of charity, but rather of laziness, indifference, and human respect. The ecumenical theologians act like doctors who encourage the self-delusion of a gravely ill patient instead of alerting him to the gravity of his condition and treating him.
1 The same kind of interreligious ceremony was repeated at Assisi in January 1993, at Rome in 1999, then again at Assisi, in the Pope’s presence, in January 2002.
2 Knox version.
3 John Paul II, Allocution of October 27, 1986, in the Basilica St. Mary of the Angels [English version taken from the Vatican website].
4 Cardinal Etchegaray, DC, No. 1929 (December 7, 1986), p.1074.
5 The expression is John Paul II’s (DC, 1929, p.1071).
6 John Paul II, Redemptor Hominis, §6.
7 John Paul II, “The State of the World and the Spirit of Assisi,” Discourse to the Cardinals and the Curia, December 22, 1986; DC No. 1933 (February 1, 1987), p.133.
8 Ibid., p.134.
9 Exi ab eo, immunde spiritus, et da locum Spiritui Sancto Paraclito.
10 Documentation Catholique 1929 (December 7, 1986), pp.1076-77.
11 Pope John Paul II, Address to the Representatives of the Christian Churches and Ecclesial Communities and of the World Religions at the St. Francis of Assisi Basilica, October 27, 1986 [English version online at www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1986/october/documents].
12 Remarks published in Hiram, the bulletin of the Grand Orient of Italy, April 1987.
13 The text was made public on July 15, 1993, by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.
Current Issue
