Rorate Caeli
SSPX Bishop Fellay: "Assisi will be full of devils!"

Remarks on the Feast of the Epiphany during a sermon given at St. Nicolas du Chardonnet on the Solemnity of the Epiphany, January 9, 2011.

After explaining the arrival of the Three Magi who traveled from the farthest ends of the pagan world to adore Our Lord Jesus Christ, Bishop Fellay contrasts this example of the Faith of the Magi with the unbelief of Herod and of the priests and the announcement of the World Day of Prayer for Peace in Assisi in October 2011.
BISHOP FELLAY'S SERMON:

In theory they know, in theory they believe. But in reality, do they believe? Do they really believe that Our Lord is God? Do they really believe that peace among men, among nations, is in His hand? Do they really believe in all the immediate, direct consequences of His divinity? …Are they all going, like the Magi, the Three Kings, to adore the true God and to look to Him for that peace and to ask Him for it? Are they going to the King of Peace: Rex Pacificus?

Oh, how history repeats itself, alas!

Yes, we are deeply indignant, we vehemently protest against this repetition of the days at Assisi. Everything that we have said, everything that Archbishop Lefebvre had said at the time [of the first World Day of Prayer for Peace in Assisi in 1986], we repeat in our own name. It is evident, my dear brothers, that such a thing demands reparation. What a mystery!

Yes, to adore: what does that mean? To adore means first of all: to recognize, to recognize the divinity. Adoration is given to God alone. And recognizing His divinity immediately implies submission; a declaration of submission to the sovereignty of God. It is to recognize that God has every right over us, that we are really entirely dependent, absolutely dependent upon God for our existence, our life, our ability to act, think, desire, and will. Every good, every good thing that happens to us, comes from the goodness of God. And this is true—not only for believers, not only for Christians—this is true for every creature, absolutely every creature.

God, the Creator of all things, visible and invisible, is also the One who governs this world, the One who sustains all things by the power of His Word, the One in whom everything has its stability! Lord of life and death, of individuals and nations! Almighty, eternal God, to whom all honor and glory is due! Yes, to adore is to put oneself in this posture of humility which acknowledges God’s rights.

Let us go, then, let us go to Our Lord; even though He hides His Divinity, even though He is a tiny Child in the arms of His Mother, He is truly God! He is true God, sent by the mercy of the good God to save us. For He was made man, and in becoming a man he became the Savior, and His name, given by God Himself, is Jesus: the Savior! The only name that has been given under heaven by which we can be saved. The only Savior! The only Holy One, “Tu solus Sanctus” [as we say in the Gloria], who comes to bring us something unheard of: the invitation to God’s eternal happiness.

How can people hope to be able to receive His blessings when they insult Him, when they ignore Him, when they diminish Him? It is madness! How can anyone hope for peace among men when he makes a mockery of God?

And here modern thinking makes truly bizarre sorts of projections: it pretends that all religions, ultimately, adore one and the same true God. That is absolutely false; it is even in Revelation; we find it already in the psalms, in Psalm 96:5, “All the gods of the Gentiles are devils!” They are devils. And Assisi will be full of devils! This is Revelation, this is the Faith of the Church; this is the teaching of the Church!

Now where is continuity? Now where is rupture? What a mystery!

Yes, my dear brothers, if we want to be saved, there is only one way, and that is the way of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

65 comments:

  1. Anonymous2:34 PM

    I am the Lord Thy God; Thou shalt not have false gods before me.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous3:11 PM

    Fellay: "Yes, we are deeply indignant, we vehemently protest against this repetition of the days at Assisi. Everything that we have said, everything that Archbishop Lefebvre had said at the time [of the first World Day of Prayer for Peace in Assisi in 1986], we repeat in our own name. It is evident, my dear brothers, that such a thing demands reparation. What a mystery!"

    If it's evident, where's the mystery? After Fellay's pat phrases strung together, I'll stick with the Holy Father.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Now where is continuity indeed? "When the Son of Man returns will He find, do you think, any faith left on Earth?" Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous3:30 PM

    Pauls visit to Mars Hill bears a serious look as we enter into this new missionary age.(Acts 17) We must remember that the successor of the Apostle Peter is not a syncretist! He is a profound theologian and a deeply prayerful Pope! Be Not Afraid! This is an appropriate effort at inter-religious co-operation to prevent the spiraling pattern of deadly violence. Also, remember Regensburg!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous4:10 PM

    An excellent sermon, totally Catholic and completely true. I speak as a priest who celebrates the Novus Ordo Mass almost every day of the year. Thank God for the SSPX and for the witness of bishops like Monsignor Fellay. Will the Vatican be inviting them to Assisi, by the way?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous4:33 PM

    I'll side with Benedict.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous4:45 PM

    If it's evident, where's the mystery?

    Evident in that it requires reparation. Mystery in that it is incomprehensible from the perspective of Tradition and Scripture.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous4:47 PM

    Why is it that the people commenting on this blog seem to know the Catholic faith better than the Pope? Of course Bishop Fellay's response is the Catholic one and i attend a FSSP parish. When will this nonsense end! The fact is that these other men on the dais of this heretical festival at Assisi are headed to Hell and the Pope has the responsibility to tell it to their face no matter what they think of him. After he tells them it's now their responsibility to seek the TRUTH from Jesus

    ReplyDelete
  9. thomas tucker5:01 PM

    SImple minds cannot see beyond buzz words.

    ReplyDelete
  10. A good insight from Paolo Rodari http://www.paolorodari.com/
    titled:

    why this time Benedict XVI will go to Assisi: From criticism of the trial today of 86, Regensburg and the "Dominus Iesus"

    Google translate can translate it for you into English

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anon 15:11, I think Bishop Fellay is implying the mystery of an indefectible Church that has seemingly defected. According to Bishop Fellay, Assisi "...pretends that all religions, ultimately, adore one and the same true God. That is absolutely false..."

    Of course, that is an interpretation of Assisi -- one that Pope Benedict would contest. So, it belongs to the Pope to give us the true interpretation of Assisi. Does it pretend that all religions are equal? Is it merely a call for authentic prayer regardless of one's religion. In this sense, even the honest prayer of non-Christians has value. The Catechism of the Council of Trent refers to this as the "third degree of prayer."

    So, the issue is really one of interpretation of the event in itself -- and also the question of the value of the honest personal prayer to God -- even by non Christians.

    ReplyDelete
  12. David5:43 PM

    The words of Bishop Fellay make sense to me. A repetition of the scandal of Assisi 1986 makes no sense to me.

    Again and again, such meetings give the faithful the impression that false religions are equally valid paths to God.

    The quote by Kindred Spirit of that passage from the Gospel of St Luke is very apposite.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous6:12 PM

    Anon. 15.11:

    Pat phrases? Fellay makes perfect sense. I'll stick with Fellay, with Pope St. Pius X, and with all the popes to the time of the Communist Freemasonic Revolution in the Church in the 1960s. Just try to one second to imagine Pope St. Pius X or even Pope Pius XII meeting with this gang of devil-worshippers and asking for their prayers for peace. The very notion would cause them to issue anathemas and everyone on this blog damn well knows it.

    First the Holy Father announces the Assisi abomination, then the statement on religious liberty, when every nation is morally bound to be Catholic in principle. What do thees two acts signify? Notice how close together they were.

    Well, I think that the Pope is saying that he will not back away from some of the positions taken after Vatican II. This is His Holiness's way of making clear in advance that Conciliar Rome will not change her line beyond a certain point. I'd rather not comment on that for now because it probably requires very careful analysis. So I am looking at this strategically at first.

    I think that the Pope realises fully by now that Bishop Fellay will not 'make a deal'. It is partly because Fellay does not want to make a deal with Conciliar Rome and partly because, should he do so, he would face a revolt within his own Society.

    TO BE CONTINUED ...

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous6:14 PM

    CONTINUATION, P.K.T.P.:

    The Pope, I think, has already decided that he can only go further with the S.S.P.X by unilateral papal acts. Despite Fellay's protests, he could 'go the distance' and simpy remove the 1975 suppression and other penalties ab initio, from their origin, and then reconstitute the Society canonically. Presto! They're in and cannot deny their status without denying the Pope's office, which would make them sedevacantists. They can continue to act as before and on the same old grounds, in which case Rome would ask the faithful not to support them in any way and then leave it at that. Such a manœuvre would be very ambitious but this Pope is a daring man. In justification, H.H. could say that the S.S.P.X follows a position 'not incompatible with the Faith' even though it is a positon on some things that Rome disparages or rejects.

    The less ambitious unilateral act would be simply to recognise publicly that Society Masses fulfil the oligation to assist at Mass and to do so at law (published in the A.A.S.) and then leave it at that.

    This Pope is aware that he, and not Bishop Fellay, is Pope. Can the Pope 'have his cake and eat it, too?'. Well, for Christ, truth is one and it is dictated by God, not decided by compromise with the disciples. And the Pope is Christ's Vicar. Of course, none of this means that the Pope is necessarily right about religious liberty and œcumnism.

    I think that the Pope wants to make it clear to both right and left in the Church that GOD, acting through the Chair of Peter, will decide whether or not to consider clarifications of Conciliar teaching and God, working though the same Chair, will decide the fate of the S.S.P.X as well. If the traditionalists don't like the coming Assisi re-enactment, that's too bad for them. They'll have to get used to it and grow up. If the liberals don't like a unilateral regularisation of the S.S.P.X, that's too bad. They'll have to get used to it and grow up.

    I'm not saying that I agree with the Pope on Assisi!, only that this is good at least insofar as he is acting like a real pope. He's not taking orders from anyone on either side. If only more priests would behave this way when dealing with lay busybodies in the sacristy, we'd be better off in the first place.

    From the Society's point of view, it may want to recognise a unilateral regularisation but continue to act independently for a time. This Pope might tolerate that for practical reasons but the next pope might not. So I think that a unilateral regularisation might backfire. A unilateral recognition of Masses (and even faculties) might be the best way to go. As long as popes are meeting with devil-worshippers and asserting that their false worship can somehow foster an ordered peace, we are in trouble. True peace comes exclusively from Jesus Christ, and it does not tolerate error.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous6:21 PM

    I prefer the simple traditional piety of Bishop Fellay any day over the slippery and unctuous pronouncements of postconciliar prelates? He reacts to blasphemy and abomination exactly as any good Catholic should. The devil mixes some truth with his errors that even the elect may be deceived. That is why false religions are entirely evil. Truth, to be sound, must be consistent.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  16. oremusrob6:28 PM

    God bless Bishop Fellay.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Tom the Milkman6:31 PM

    "If it's evident, where's the mystery?…"

    If the priest at your local NO parish were to give this sermon next Sunday morning, how many Catholics in the pews would be scandalised? How many would understand what he was saying? How many who did understand it would accept it? How many would even know that before 1960 these words of Bishop Fellay would have but expressed the consoling faith of virtually every Catholic sitting in the pews on any given Sunday morning? How many practicing NO Catholics today comprehend Rome's apparent defection from her own unchanging Faith? How many who do understand, care? Before VC2 how many ordinary Catholics, how many priests and theologians, how many Popes had to teeter totter over the meaning of religious syncretism, false worship, scandal in order to accomodate, let alone justify, what constantly unfolded before their very eyes? Only those no longer able to understand the answer to these questions can ask "where is the mystery?" God bless Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay. God help us all.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous6:57 PM

    "Thank God for the SSPX and for the witness of bishops like Monsignor Fellay. Will the Vatican be inviting them to Assisi, by the way?"

    Touché. Well played, Father.

    ReplyDelete
  19. ..."that such a thing demands reparation. What a mystery!"

    The mystery is that something which demands reparation, such as praying with heretics, schismatics and the like, is not seen as such by modern Rome. Apparently, only the SSPX and some other traditional orders see things that way. But, we have time to see if the Holy Father will yet turn something which is objectively against the Faith into something which speaks in defense of the Faith. The devil worshipers may yet have their Waterloo.

    ReplyDelete
  20. The Holy Father has outlined what Assisi will be about, irrespective of the sinister thoughts of those who believe it will be a syncretist gathering. A challenge to those who claim belief in transcendence to cease taking up arms is not a bad idea.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Pauls visit to Mars Hill bears a serious look as we enter into this new missionary age.(Acts 17) We must remember that the successor of the Apostle Peter is not a syncretist!

    So the Pope will communicate the need for the Catholic faith for salvation and true peace then?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Fred Dempsey8:02 PM

    Who is to say that this is a repeat of Assisi 1986? The Pope meets with just about anyone individually; are we to say he cannot meet the world in a group? What was offensive about Assisi 1986 were the things said and done. This Pope will say very different words, and do very different deeds. Only a fool condemns a just man before he acts.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anonymous8:22 PM

    Why all the comments as to whose side you are on??... Recall 1 Corinthians 12-14 "I indeed am of Paul; and I am of Apollo; and I am of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided?"

    Is the Catholic Church divided? No.

    I am on the side of the Catholic Church and the Catholic faith. I am on the side of its preservation for the sake of souls. And so is Bishop Fellay.

    Praying with leaders of false religions is harmful and not helpful to souls. Pretending that there are no "false religions" is deadly to the faith.

    Bishop Fellay's words are full of truth. He is doing what a Catholic should do and no one else will do-- standing up to the errors of our times--even if it is to the Pope's face.

    Praise God!

    Genevieve

    ReplyDelete
  24. Anonymous8:25 PM

    The teaching of Dominus Iesus (2000) is alas nearly ignored within the Church at every level.

    So gathering people for a new edition of Assisi is inoculating a heavier dose of syncretist and indifferentist virus without protecting the Catholic faithful from its viciousness.

    Is it pastorally wise ?
    This annoucement shows indeed that probably no reconciliation is at hands with SSPX maybe a modus vivendi as P.K.T.P. suggests without canonical status.

    We can pray that the most predictable negative repercussions will be as limited as possible.
    As for the results of Assisi I (1986) and II (2002), history and alas, alas the news every day tell us clearly it has been utterly wasted. In particular, Christians in general seem more and more victims of religious hatred and violence from other religions.

    I'm afraid the pope has surrendered to the disastrous "appeasement" spirit of the secretariate of State and all those within the Church he, as cardinal in 2005, was lashing at before entering in conclave.

    Alsaticus

    ReplyDelete
  25. M. A.8:42 PM

    "I'll side with Benedict."
    ____________

    Best to side with ALL the popes who would have, and did condemn such gatherings!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Igumen Gregory9:33 PM

    As I read this article I felt sick to my stomach. i remember that fiasco back in 86; it was not a high point in any pontificate, be it Catholic nor Orthodox. I love and respect this present Pope, but would have advised him to stay away from this mess, or just make a quick appearance like he did in Naples a while back. waiting to see which of our orthodox ecommunists will attend; frankly they up set me far more.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Regardless of what Pope Benedict is doing at Assisi with all those pagans and heretics, the scandal it gives to Catholics is very great. The message is WRONG!Whereas the Faith spoken by Bp Fellay can be understood as the Faith of the ages. The Pope is responsible for sending mixed signals to his flock.
    Helen T

    ReplyDelete
  28. PKTP,

    I agree. Excellent points!

    ReplyDelete
  29. Jack O'Malley10:26 PM

    I am perhaps more sanguine about the outcome of this peace powwow than some other commenters. Surely a bit of anointing with sacred cow dung or an aspersion of yak's milk or an idol of the Great God Budd on the altar is worth the potential conversion of the Dolly Llama or some Shiva shaman or even the Grand Mufti himself. A shame Kirill and Bart will probably stay home.

    But God forbid Ratzinger should try to outdo Pacelli and proselytise the Chief Rabbi of Rome. We all know that that covenant remains valid, don't we?. Didn't another Rabbi have a soundbyte about fulfilling the Law and teaching all nations? De his autem non disputandum est nostra aetate. Pro pudor!

    Malachi Martin once remarked that the pope following Wojtyła would sow even greater confusion. Fellay is right. Pandaemonium Assisii aderit.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Cosmos11:02 PM

    "Who is to say that this is a repeat of Assisi 1986? The Pope meets with just about anyone individually; are we to say he cannot meet the world in a group? What was offensive about Assisi 1986 were the things said and done. This Pope will say very different words, and do very different deeds. Only a fool condemns a just man before he acts."

    I could not agree more.

    It seems that not only charity, but also simple common sense compel us to assume that the Pope intends to contrast his gathering with the previous one.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Anonymous11:16 PM

    Just when I thought the Pope wouldn't dare.

    Please do not go Holy Father. This is getting ridiculous now. This poor friar has to put up with people who think that unity in diversity is great and that subsistit in means that est is somehow inaccurate.

    Just to echo. ALL THE GODS OF THE GENTILES ARE DEVILS.

    Mohammed either made islam up or the devil himself appeared to him.

    Orthodox need to come back to the fold as well as the protestant.

    The Jewish religion is in our time the false religion even if at one time it was the true one before the jews rejected their messiah.

    This is the Faith.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Anonymous11:55 PM

    I'll side with Bishop Fellay and the SSPX

    ReplyDelete
  33. Anonymous1:33 AM

    I don't think one should be too certain on a judgment until something has actually happened. That doesn't seem like too much to ask. Remember that Pope Leo the Great saved Rome by personally speaking to Attila the Hun and persuading him not to sack the city. Though, for all that, I would agree that we do need another Pope Leo the Great now as much as ever, and for the same reasons.

    ReplyDelete
  34. thomas tucker said,

    "Simple minds cannot see beyond buzz words."

    So True!

    ReplyDelete
  35. alphonsus20102:17 AM

    I hope the Holy Father will echo the same words by Our Lord Himself to the Jews: (From St John's Gospel 8:21-25)

    Jesus said to the Jews: I go, and you shall seek me, and you shall die in your sin. Whither I go, you cannot come.

    The Jews therefore said: Will He kill himself, because he said: Whither I go, you cannot come? And Jesus said to them: You are from beneath, I am from above. You are of this world, I am not of this world.

    Therefore I said to you, that you shall die in your sins. For if you believe not that I am he, you shall die in your sin. They said therefore to him: Who art thou? Jesus said to them: The beginning , who also speak unto you.

    ----------

    Our Lord Jesus Christ is the True God! The God Incarnate, the Word made Flesh!

    Anything that diminishes this Supernatural Truth must be Rejected!

    ReplyDelete
  36. Anonymous2:27 AM

    I simply wish he wold not participate in this. It will be misrepresented and made into a circus for nothing. I doubt the Pope will stand up and ask the world to convert to the Catholic Faith.

    ReplyDelete
  37. We don't even know what's going to happen in Assisi this time around.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Anonymous2:46 AM

    I would have hoped that Pope Benedict would have avoided resurrecting Assisi... It was a painful event in the life of the Church.
    BUT I suspect that perhaps he is doing this intentionally to smooth over the previous event, by more clearly walking the line of V2.
    The previous events were over-the-top and became a scandalous joke. Eg the Buddah on the tabernacle etc.
    My guess is that BXVI will be sure to walk the ambiguous line of V2. This way he can neutralize criticism of the previous events, by showing how it should have been done.
    My opinion is however, that this needs to condemned, right along with V2, not only for its apparent break with past teachings but also simply because it sews confusion amongst the faithful.
    Popes have to be clear in their messages, can't the clergy learn the cardinal rules of effective communication.
    Perhaps the Holy Ghost will have a trick up his sleeve and inspire the Holy Father to preach as St Francis did to the Muslim King?
    Let's hope.

    ReplyDelete
  39. \\to the time of the Communist Freemasonic Revolution in the Church in the 1960s.\\

    Did you know that Freemasony was outlawed under Communism?

    Why are you gratuitously linking them?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Anonymous2:50 AM

    Some here say that we should wait to see if Benedict XVI will recast Assisi by different acts and prayers. Fair enough to a point. But keep in mind that this new event is a *commemoration* of 1986 and 2002. How many here honestly think that this Pope will reverse the actions of John Paul the Small? No matter what this Pope does or says, his presence specifically at Assisi with them will be read by most faithful as a reinforcement of Assisi. If he wanted to change course, he's change venue, given its association.

    As for Islam, in partcular, we can only say that all the violence against Christians in the Levant and in Pakistan and Indonesia, the Sudan, Nigeria, &c. has come *after* Assisi 1986 and Assisi 2002. The more these popes 'reach out' to the musslemen, the more they interpret this as a sign of weakness, and the more they attack. As for the Jews, they now urinate daily on the door of the Cenacle in Jerusalem. It's their way of saying 'hello' to Christians. Meanwhile, the Hindoos are busy beating our priests to death with sticks in Uttar Pradesh. It's a garden of peace.

    If you have the true Faith, there is not much you can gain from devil-worshippers. Anyway, the sort of Muslims who will hug the Pope at Assisi are not the same chaps who are blowing themselves up just to kill a few Christians. I can't see how the radical Islamists will be swayed by moderate Muslims who love peace.

    If all these religions are seen to be one, then they must all be false, since they contradict one another. I suppose we can try to imagine a St. Francis organising a meeting with mullahs and brahmans and rabbis to try to convince them to work for peace without first converting to Christ. But I have trouble imagining it. It just doesn't fit. As for St. Pius X, he would not believe that the proposal was serious but would still say that it is a very sick joke.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Anonymous2:56 AM

    Anon. 1.33:

    So, do you really think that anything Benedict XVI can say can convince lunatics in Pakistan to cease and desist? They went onto the streets in huge numbers to *celebrate* the assassination of a Government minister who wanted to change their blasphemy law.

    Let's put this in context. Suppose Republicans were to go onto the street to have a party to celebrate the shooting of that Congresswoman in Arizona. How do you think our media would react to that? They'd be outraged and, for once, they's be right about something.

    To be civilised, truly civilised, one must be a Christian in the first place. Post-Classical civilisation--civilisation as we know it--is a made-in-Christendom Christian product.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Tom the Milkman4:50 AM

    "We don't even know what's going to happen in Assisi this time around."

    Perhaps not. But Pope John Paul II saw to it that Catholics know what must not happen this time around, what must never happen again in Assisi.

    ReplyDelete
  43. How interesting some of these comments are!

    We all know that God calls each of us gently to pray to Him. It seems though, that many cannot look beyond their human limitations to see God's work in progress.
    I don't believe this effort has any interest in subduing Catholic faith at all. I think it's rather an exhortation to all people, an exhortation to pray in whatever way they will.

    Do we believe God hears all prayers, or not?

    Even if the heathen should offer prayers to his god, our Almighty Lord hears them, doesn't He?

    Will you exercise human pride and dictate that you won't kneel with your brother? ..He is your brother, isn't he? Whether he admits to it or not?


    Do you have the guts to see another child of God in another man?

    I wonder.....

    ReplyDelete
  44. Anonymous5:22 AM

    I'm not sure why the Holy Father will stand among these pagans and this was an excellent sermon by Abp Fellay. Again as I said last week, I have serious doubts that SSPX will be back within the Church until the "minor chastisement" which is looming straight ahead. It's going to take a serious event like this to wake people up and to shake off the Novus Ordo. In the end, Econe will win.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Anonymous11:14 AM

    Thank you, Bishop Fellay. We will pray for Pope Pius X's: "Top restore all things in Christ."
    May Assisi 2011 be canceled!
    Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on The Pope and us!

    ReplyDelete
  46. Anonymous2:01 PM

    I'm not sure the "all the gods of the Gentiles are devils" can apply universally today. When it was uttered, generally speaking, the only people who adored God was Israel--everyone else adored idols and other beings of a contingent essence. They adored the creature rather than the Creator. Yet, as was mentioned, St. Paul encountered Gentiles even in his own day who were already worshipping the one true God whome he preached.

    Worshipping anything other than God is idolatry, but the Muslims, for example, have always been distinguished from idolators in traditional sources (see the Catechism of St. Pius X, the consecration to Christ the King of Pius XI, St. John of Damascus' Fount of Knowledge, etc.)

    They are considered a second tier of the classification "infidel." See the explanation of this phrase by the old Catholic Encyclopedia:

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08002b.htm

    ReplyDelete
  47. M. A.2:47 PM

    "Do you have the guts to see another child of God in another man?
    ______________________

    It doesn't take "guts" to know that if he is baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, yes, he is a child of God. If not, he cannot be called a child of God.

    A creature of God, yes, but a child of God, no.

    Basic catechism: Baptism makes us adopted children of God. A human being stained with Original sin is not a child of God, rather he is a child of ......

    In the words of Scripture,"For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness?"

    Maybe St. Paul didn't have "guts"?

    ReplyDelete
  48. Anonymous4:01 PM

    Do we believe God hears all prayers, or not?

    John, this is an excellent question. Unless I'm mistaken, the proposition that "God does not hear the prayers of pagans" is not an article of faith that we are bound to believe as Catholics. We are, of course, commanded to offer our prayers to the Father through Jesus Christ. By faith, we know that prayers offered in the Name of Jesus are sure to please the Father (unless we ask for something evil in the Name of Jesus, which would be sacrilege).

    That said, I don't think that the Holy Father is concerned about the efficacy of the prayers offered by non-Christians. That's not the point, it's not why the Holy Father is inviting the heathen to Assisi. He believes, rightly, that prayers offered in the service of peace -- objectively efficacious or not -- will have a positive effect at the subjective level in those praying. In other words, those who pray for peace will become more peaceful. Catholics alone are able to enjoy the full fruits of their prayer for peace, both subjectively and objectively, by the grace of Jesus Christ. However, this does not rule out the "subjective efficacy" of prayer that takes place in the hearts of non-Catholics and non-Christians.

    ReplyDelete
  49. The Pope doesn't have to go to Assisi to tell them the Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ is the one true church and religion. However, did JPII do that at Assisi?
    Did he stand up and say that all other religions are false and that they must convert? Will Pope Benedict tell them they must convert to Catholicism to save their souls at Assisi in 2011? Have the gatherings at Assisi in the past led these false religions to think their religion is Okay? Did they take down the crucifix, etc.? If so, that is an abomination to the true God made man, Jesus Christ and against the 1st Commandment. We all know what happened with the Golden Calf! Now Communism is spreading throughout the world like Our Lady of Fatima warned. Obviously something is very wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Anonymous12:58 AM

    "I'm not saying that I agree with the Pope on Assisi!, only that this is good at least insofar as he is acting like a real pope."

    Bingo! When all the dust settles it all boils down to this: the exercise of naked Papal authority, its reception or rejection. THAT is all that ultimately matters. It is manifestly unimportant what one believes as long as one salutes the pope du jour and his particular positions, especially when they contradict previous papal positions. After all "If the traditionalists don't like the coming Assisi re-enactment, that's too bad for them." Too bad for all of us.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Anonymous2:03 AM

    wheat4paradise:

    "[S]ubjective efficacy" makes the pagans more peaceful?

    The same thing could be accomplished with a few milligrams of prozac.

    Giles

    ReplyDelete
  52. 3 Kings 18:21-30
    And Elias coming to all the people, said: How long do you halt between two sides? if the Lord be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people did
    not answer him a word. And Elias said again to the people: I only remain a prophet of the Lord: but the prophets of Baal are four hundred and fifty men. Let two bullocks be given us, and let them choose one bullock for themselves, and cut it in pieces and lay it upon wood, but put no fire under: and I will dress the other bullock, and lay it on wood, and put no fire under it. Call ye on the names of your gods, and I will call on the name of my Lord: and the God that shall answer by fire, let him be God. And all the people answering said: A very good proposal.

    Then Elias said to the prophets of Baal: Choose you one bullock and dress it first, because you are many: and call on the names of your gods, but put no fire under. And they took the bullock which he gave them, and dressed it: and they called on the name of Baal from morning even till noon, saying: O Baal, hear us. But there
    was no voice, nor any that answered: and they leaped over the altar that they had made. And when it was now noon, Elias jested at them, saying: Cry with a louder
    voice: for he is a God, and perhaps he is talking, or is in an inn, or on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep, and must be awaked. So they cried with a loud voice, and cut themselves after their manner with knives and lancets, till they were all covered with blood. And after midday was past, and while they were prophesying, the time was come of offering sacrifice, and there was no voice heard, nor did any one answer, nor regard them as they prayed: Elias said to all the people: Come ye unto me. And the people coming near unto him, he repaired the altar of the Lord, that was broken down:
    (to be continued)

    ReplyDelete
  53. (continued)
    3 Kings 18:31-40
    And he took twelve stones according to the number of the tribes of the sons of Jacob, to whom the word of the Lord came, saying: Israel shall be thy name.
    And he built with the stones an altar to the name of the Lord: and he made a trench for water, of the breadth of two furrows round about the altar. And he laid the wood in order, and cut the bullock in pieces, and laid it upon the wood. And he said: Fill four buckets with water, and pour it upon the burnt offering, and upon the wood. And again he said: Do the same the second time. And when they had done it the second time, he said: Do the same also the third time. And they did so the third time. And the water run round about the altar, and the trench was filled with water.

    And when it was now time to offer the holocaust, Elias the prophet came near and said: O Lord God of Abraham, and Isaac, and Israel, shew this day that thou art the God of Israel, and I thy servant, and that according to thy commandment I have done all these things. Hear me, O Lord, hear me: that this people may learn, that
    thou art the Lord God, and that thou hast turned their heart again. Then the fire of the Lord fell, and consumed the holocaust, and the wood, and the stones, and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench. And when all the people saw this, they fell on their faces, and they said: The Lord he is God, the Lord he is God. And Elias said to them: Take the prophets of Baal, and let not one of them escape. And when they had taken them, Elias brought them down to the torrent Cison, and killed them there.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Anonymous5:41 AM

    Giles, really???

    A Hindu who accepts the invitation of the Vicar of Christ to come to the town of St. Francis and pray for peace in his own limited and insufficient way is better off than the Hindu who stays at home and hates his Muslim neighbor. Of course, the Hindu will be infinitely better off if he converts to the Catholic Faith. Let us pray that the organizers of Assisi III keep all the Crucifixes in place. Let us hope that the Holy Father gives a strong witness (as I'm sure that he will) to Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace. Who knows what seeds might be planted. Let's get over the hysterics, pray for the Pope, and trust his good judgement.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Anonymous2:04 PM

    wheat:

    REALLY!

    The point is (1) that the Hindu who hates his Muslim neighbor AIN'T coming to Assisi.

    AND

    (2) The gobbly gook theology of "subjective efficacy" is as nebulous and substantive as a seminary course in "theological anthropology." If it's peaceful feelings you desire from Assisi, prozac will do just as nicely (unless you're secondary reason is trying to assist the local economy by bringing in additional commerce).

    I am not bound as a Catholic to believe that the prayer of a pagan is efficacious before God in any way shape or form. The Assisi gathering makes it seem as if Catholics do have to accept it. Thus my criticism of the event.

    Giles

    ReplyDelete
  56. Bill McEnaney3:38 PM

    I usually agree with the SSPX. But, although it probably should be indignant, maybe the 2011 Assisi will be only a "summit" where attendees discuss worldwide problem to discover solutions to them. Unfortunately, can hardly doubt that this year's Assisi meeting will be much like the ones John Paul II held in 1986 and 2002. For me, today's evil(?), religiously indifferent ecumenism proves Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich's point when she says, "I saw many pastors cherishing dangerous ideas against the Church. . . . They built a large, singular, extravagant church which was to embrace all creeds with equal rights: Evangelicals, Catholics, and all denominations, a true communion of the unholy with one shepherd and one flock. There was to be a Pope, a salaried Pope, without possessions. All was made ready, many things finished; but, in place of an altar, were only abomination and desolation. Such was the new church to be, and it was for it that he had set fire to the old one; but God designed otherwise."

    --from Life and Revelations of Anne Catherine Emmerich, Vol. 2, pp. 352-353

    ReplyDelete
  57. This papacy is almost totally morally, financially & ecumenically bankrupt.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Anonymous6:17 AM

    Hey, Mar, maybe the Pope is inviting all the leaders of the non-Catholic religions to Assisi so that he can slay them.

    Giles,

    I posted the following comment in response to a reader on my blog, and I feel that it's worth repeating here:

    ***
    St. Paul’s admonishment of the Corinthians ("you can't sup with devils and then eat at the Lord's table") was given at a time when the nascent Catholic Faith was in danger of contamination with pagan ideas and practices. While that danger still exists today in isolated cases, the essential doctrine and worship of the Church is firmly established (please, let’s not get into a whole debate about Vatican II and the Novus Ordo here). In meeting with pagans and encouraging them to pray for peace, Pope Benedict XVI is not endangering the essential structure of the Catholic Faith. The latter is precisely what was at stake for the fledgling local Church at Corinth in AD 50. Pope Benedict XVI knows what he is doing; the Corinthians did not.

    When St. Paul went among the pagans in Athens, he did not smash their idols. He told the Athenians that they were “in all respects very religious”. He walked around carefully looking at the various shrines, not knocking any of them over. He offered a strong critique of idolatry, to be sure, and he warned that the time of God’s winking at ignorance is past, and he preached the Resurrection of Our Lord. True, he did not invite the pagans to pray to their idols, yet neither did he condemn them. He acknowledged and respected their religiosity, such as it was: “You Athenians, I see that in every respect you are very religious.”

    Pope Benedict XVI does not invite the pagans to do anything that is hateful to God. The pagans are trying to honor God in their own misguided way. That’s not hateful to God. It’s sad, but it’s not hateful. What is hateful to God is to turn away from Him after He has chosen you. That’s what the First Commandment is all about. It’s not a blanket condemnation of paganism and pagans as such. It is an exhortation to the Jews to remain faithful, having turned away from all of that for the sake of a greater Love. St. Paul's admonishment of the Corinthians is along the very same lines.

    You can be sure that Pope Benedict XVI will witness to Our Lord Jesus Christ at Assisi. The pagans will hear about the Cross and Resurrection of Our Lord, and they will scoff, just like they did at Athens. Yet a few will say to the Pope, just like some of the Athenians said to Paul: “We should like to hear you on this some other time.” The seed will be planted and the water of charity will help it grow.

    ***

    There it is for what it's worth. By the way, I always hated Assisi I and II, as those events symbolized for me in a special way everything that I hated about the "Novus Ordo Church". Defending Assisi III goes against my grain in a lot of ways, yet I've decided to put my trust in this Pope. Perhaps he's made and will continue to make some misguided decisions. I'll take that chance. It beats going through life in a constant state of opposition, balled up like a clenched fist all the time.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Anonymous1:23 PM

    wheat:

    You said: "St. Paul’s admonishment of the Corinthians ("you can't sup with devils and then eat at the Lord's table") was given at a time when the nascent Catholic Faith was in danger of contamination with pagan ideas and practices."

    But you see, THAT is precisely the point. The Faith is victimized by syncretism in the very nature of the post-conciliar Mass. Its plethora of options (dripping with the same subjectivity which you have exalted)and minimalist ritual (combined with a heterodox episcopate which refuses to protect the integrity of the Faith in the everyday life of the Church) has been the root cause of changing the Faith for the average Catholic in the pew for 50 years. Please, if you haven't already, read Michael Davies' "Cranmer's Godly Order" and its account of how liturgical changes slowly but deliberately changed Catholics into Protestants. More than ever, the Faith is endangered by contamination.

    But, liturgy aside, let's take the Assisi event as an example of creeping syncretism. Frank Sheed used to say that the greatest danger to the intellect is the imagination. The imagination offers pictures; the intellect demands abstraction. Imagination is much easier for most of us. Therefore, the picture of all the Assisi participants gathered in prayer, without the concomitant task required by the intellect to make theological distinctions (IF the intellect is even trained to make them), offers the average Catholic a perfect "show and tell" lesson of universal salvationism and religious indifferentism. And that's what they take away from it.

    I agree with your "clenched fist" analogy. But clenched fists are not always synonymous with anger; sometimes they're the fruit of tension wrought by contradiction, exhibiting the desperate demeanor of "I've got to hang on despite the apostasy I see around me -- while being told it doesn't exist (as if I'm crazy)."

    You sound like a decent Catholic chap who's exhausted from fighting. I identify with that sentiment. But we cannot give blind obedience to the very apostolic leaders who got us to this disastrous point in history. There is nothing blind about Catholicism. Where the intellect is disturbed by mass contradiction within the Church of the Ages (the mission of which is to offer truthful witness to the unchanging nature of the Creator), the fight (mostly by prayer and fasting) must go on.

    But to not articulate the dangers we're being exposed to by contradiction, is to surrender to the chaos of the evil one.

    God bless you, for I suspect we would disagree on very little; the difference is that you have found it necessary to step back from the fray to preserve your sanity and your faith. Everyday, I deal with that temptation.

    Giles

    P.S. I think not a few of us write on this board in order primarily to clarify things for ourselves, and only secondarily to sound disagreeable with those to whom we often addressing.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Anonymous5:25 AM

    P.S. I think not a few of us write on this board in order primarily to clarify things for ourselves, and only secondarily to sound disagreeable with those to whom we often addressing.

    Giles, that is very true. I respect the concerns addressed by many here, more than my comments might let on. God bless!

    ReplyDelete
  61. A short reflection on Israel. When Solomon reigned over the tribes united by the LORD under his father David, the Law of the LORD was followed by the entire kingdom. All the nations of the world came to hear Solomon's wisdom, to see the T...emple of the LORD and and to pay tribute to Israel lest they enter into Israel's disfavor. This was a literal fulfillment of Moses' words, "you are a kingdom of priests to all the nations."
    When Solomon began marrying foreign wives and building shrines to their gods, the LORD was angered and sent prophets to tell him that because the foreign wives had turned his heart from the Law of the LORD his God, he would divide the kingdom and take the greater part from him. This happened under the reign of Reheboam when the northern tribes revolted. In one short generation the Israelites descended from doctrinal purity and dominance of their enemies into chaos, confusion, division and being subject to the Egyptians again who raided the temple during Reheboam's reign.
    In my opinion, this analysis corresponds to the Conciliar Church, who wanted friendlier relations with the world, even though the Gospel teaches that friendship with the world is enmity with God. (James 4:4) That is what Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen called the Council's achilles: they did not define "world" according to the Scriptures. When the church from Pius IX to Pius XII was more conservative and orthodox, she had more respect from the other religions than she does today. As it was with Jerusalem, so it is with Rome. We cannot achieve peace through multi-faith efforts that diminish the work of Truth in the world which as Bishop Fellay rightly counsels, is in the hands of the Prince of Peace alobe (Psalm 2).

    ReplyDelete
  62. Thank you Bishop Felley
    Good to know somebody cares for salvation of souls, You are my star and leading light in a very dark sinful world. Each and every Mass I attend I thank the Lord for Archbishop Marcel, whatever his human faults, he susceeded in ensuring the Mass of all time did not die. Pray to him for the restoration of the church at this time. We have been warned in many apparitions from Heaven of the intending punishment if we do not turn back to Our Heavenly Father and Blessed Mother.
    Dont ever forget the earthquake at the Church in Assissi 25 years ago perhaps the Message of Fatima hidden for so long will be made known when its too late.

    ReplyDelete
  63. This’ what we must do (as much Catholics as possible) send a signed petition to the Holy Father to beg him no to perform such ceremony [pagan…?] because, it is a total departure from the True Faith, Holy Tradition, and worst of all a mortal sin against the First Commandment. If the pope were not to listen to the letter, than we can resist him to the face. Let us keep in mind that, this ceremony is his, and it is not part of the Ordinary Magisteriun of the Church. I strongly believe that most of the problems of the Church lie in the personal activities and opinions of the post-conciliar popes, and not in the documents of VCII per se.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Anonymous3:27 PM

    C´mon guys, these kinds of dicussions are for protestans! Because they do not have a Holy See to obey!
    We as catholics we should always be with the Pope because he can never teach something against faith and morals when he teaches something in faith and morals for the whole of the Church.
    I´am sorry guys, but I am with the Holy Father. You guys talk like The Holy Spirit have abandoned Rome and now he only acts in Econe.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Anonymous8:22 AM

    "We as catholics we should always be with the Pope because he can never teach something against faith and morals when he teaches something in faith and morals for the whole of the Church."

    In charity, I'd like to point out that the correct word is "define" and not "teach."

    Quite a difference, because it changes the dogmatic definition of papal infallibility (Vatican I) to mean papalotry.

    ReplyDelete

Comment boxes are debate forums for readers and contributors of RORATE CÆLI.

Please, DO NOT assume that RORATE CÆLI contributors or moderators necessarily agree with or otherwise endorse any particular comment just because they let it stand.

_______
NOTES

(1) This is our living room, in a deeply Catholic house, and you are our guest. Please, behave accordingly. Any comment may be blocked or deleted, at any time, whenever we perceive anything that is not up to our standards, not conducive to a healthy conversation or a healthy Catholic environment, or simply not to our liking.

(2) By clicking on the "publish your comment" button, please remain aware that you are choosing to make your comment public - that is, the comment box is not to be used for private and confidential correspondence with contributors and moderators.

(3) Any name/ pseudonym/ denomination may be freely used simply by choosing the third option, "Name/URL" (the URL box may be left empty), when posting your comment - therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to simply post as "Anonymous", making debate unnecessarily harder to follow. Any comment signed simply as "Anonymous" will be blocked.

Thank you!