Michael Voris just put out his 5th video on the 50th Anniversary of VII

[Norbert]

Let me pose to everyone the question I asked Stubborn earlier.  What exactly is Pope Benedict supposed to have done at Assisi 3 that was so terrible and what evidence is there that he actually did it? 

The whole thing itself is an abomination in principle, but let's just start with the basics.

1) He convened and organized the meeting, which is anti-Catholic in principle.

Why do you think the meeting is anti-Catholic in principle?  What do you think happened there and just what Catholic principle do you think it violated?

1 Corinthians 10: 14-22

 14Wherefore, my dearly beloved, fly from the service of idols.

    15I speak as to wise men: judge ye yourselves what I say.

    16The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord ?

    17For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread.

    18Behold Israel according to the flesh: are not they, that eat of the sacrifices, partakers of the altar ?

    19What then ? Do I say, that what is offered in sacrifice to idols, is any thing ? Or, that the idol is any thing ?

    20But the things which the heathens sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God. And I would not that you should be made partakers with devils.

    21You cannot drink the chalice of the Lord, and the chalice of devils: you cannot be partakers of the table of the Lord, and of the table of devils.

    22Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy ? Are we stronger than he? All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient.

[Stubborn]

Let me pose to everyone the question I asked Stubborn earlier.  What exactly is Pope Benedict supposed to have done at Assisi 3 that was so terrible and what evidence is there that he actually did it?  I have seen a lot of vague ranting about how horrid and scandalous it was but it merely assumes that he is guilty.

So, does that mean it is no longer sinful to pray with them - or does it mean it never was sinful to pray with them?

Or is it only ok for the pope to pray with them now - or - has it always been ok only for the pope to pray with them - - -- or - can you post any pre-V2 popes who have prayed with leaders of false religions?

Is it ok for you to keep claiming that the pope was praying with them when you offer no evidence that this actually happened?  The format of Assis 3 was supposed to prevent any situations of Catholics praying with non-Catholics.  If you have some reason to think that such praying was happening in spite of the Pope's instructions, you have some obligation to state it.  All you do is pose rhetorical questions based on the assumption that he was praying with them.

Good heavens JayneK, read what I asked.

Did I say pope Benedict or did I say pope? You still not answering clear questions with a clear answer?

You have yet to show how Assisi 3 was good for the Church (which is in a crisis for the last 50 years already BTW) good for the salvation of souls, good for conversions, good for a more devout interior life, good for vocations, good for priests and nuns, good for learning institutions, good for combating abortion and on and on the list goes - basically, how on earth do you suppose that Assisi 3 profited anyone's spiritual well being amongst the crisis at all?

Well shoot, there I go asking questions again 

[Jackson K. Eskew]

Good heavens JayneK, read what I asked.

Did I say pope Benedict or did I say pope? You still not answering clear questions with a clear answer?

You have yet to show how Assisi 3 was good for the Church (which is in a crisis for the last 50 years already BTW) good for the salvation of souls, good for conversions, good for a more devout interior life, good for vocations, good for priests and nuns, good for learning institutions, good for combating abortion and on and on the list goes - basically, how on earth do you suppose that Assisi 3 profited anyone's spiritual well being amongst the crisis at all?

Well shoot, there I go asking questions again 

You're banging your head against the wall. Give it up. You can't win. She sees what she wants to see.

[INPEFESS]

St. Paul already settled this matter.

[14] Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? [15] And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever?

[16] And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God; as God saith: I will dwell in them, and walk among them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. [17] Wherefore, Go out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing: [18] And I will receive you; and I will be a Father to you; and you shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

Blessed be God!

St. Paul, pray for us!

You further reinforce the resemblance to Protestants by taking a Scripture quote out of context to support your point.  This is a passage in which St. Paul is taking about mixed marriages.  It takes a protestant mindset to make a personal interpretation that claims this passage is relevant to the Assisi meetings.

The Church has confirmed this principle throughout Her entire existence (just see the teachings of Her theologians and Her legislation on the matter). It is only recently that Roman authorities have begun to redefine Catholicism, starting with its interpretation of Scripture.

What you have done is falsely restricted religious truth to pertain to only one aspect. This principle is used to answer the question of mixed marriages, but it also applies to much more than that (see St. Thomas Aquinas' writings on the subject). It is general principle that guides the conduct of the Church as it always has. It is bad theology to selectively restrict its meaning to only mixed marriages.

This is not a matter of the Church redefining Catholicism.  She is doing no such thing. 

That is your opinion.

As seen in the Haydock commentary, the traditional understanding of this passage is that it refers to close relationships, such as marriage, with unbelievers.  It does not mean that we are to have nothing to do with unbelievers.

This is a strawman. I never made the claim that one is to have nothing to do with unbelievers. The principle is that we are "have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness" (Eph. 5:11). This applies to close relationships, too, but not exclusively, as you try to claim. If that were the case, there would be no such thing as communicatio in sacris.

  The traditional Catholic understanding of 2 Cor 6 does not "settle this matter" as you claimed. 

When you look at it from only one side, I can see how you would come to that false conclusion. But then again, it seems you are just restating your opinion.

[INPEFESS]

It was the fact that INPEFESS gave his own interpretation, and one so different from the traditional understanding of the Church, that seemed Protestant to me.

Please support this claim by showing where I offered any such interpretation. I posted the text as an example of an application of the basic Christian principle he gave us in Eph. 5:11. I offered no interpretation of it.

[INPEFESS]

Let me pose to everyone the question I asked Stubborn earlier.  What exactly is Pope Benedict supposed to have done at Assisi 3 that was so terrible and what evidence is there that he actually did it? 

The whole thing itself is an abomination in principle, but let's just start with the basics.

1) He convened and organized the meeting, which is anti-Catholic in principle.

Why do you think the meeting is anti-Catholic in principle?  What do you think happened there and just what Catholic principle do you think it violated?

1) You cited number one while excluding the other four, two of which are problematic in their own right.

2) I have already shown you repeatedly in times past. I do not have the time to present the same perennial teachings over and over again while you simply deny what they say. No evidence ever suffices to satisfy you (you simply don't find it convincing, as you say); what reason do I have to think this time will be any different?

3) There has been a need for a coalition among religions for the sake of "peace" many times before this present age. But if there are no true problems with these meetings, then you should be able to find a plethora of examples from Church history that show saints, popes, and fathers of the Church convening them, participating in them, and exhorting the representatives of the false religions present to live out their false faiths for the cause of peace.

[Dellery]

I don't know if you have had much experience with atheists, but one of their favorite claims is that religion is detrimental to humanity and is the main cause of wars.  The Assisi meetings were meant to counter this common claim of atheists.  The meetings were to show that religions, even false religions, often inspire their followers to seek peace.  The meetings were never intended to give the idea that Catholics see all religions as equal or any such nonsense.  There were problems with the earlier meetings, as we know, and Pope Benedict had announced his intention some time ago to address these problems in the latest Assisi meeting.  From the accounts I've seen, he succeeded fairly well, so I am not sure what people are carrying on about.

So now the inter religious meeting at Assisi was about correcting atheist claims, and not praying for and promoting false peace in the absence of Christ? Sure... got any more lies you feel like feeding us? Last I knew a Pope preaching errors was something any Church loving Catholic would carry on about

"These people are seeking the truth, they
are seeking the true God, whose image is frequently concealed in the
religions because of the ways in which they are often practised."

- Pope Benedict 16 @ Assisi

The meetings at Assisi were indeed about countering atheist claims by showing people of different religions cooperating to pray for peace.  I could provide evidence to support this but I don't bother to give carefully researched answers to people who accuse me of lying.  

Can you explain why you think that the quote from Pope Benedict above is preaching error?  What is wrong with saying that people in false religions are seeking truth?  He didn't say that they have the truth.

Fair enough, I've read your posts, and what you call "carefully researched answers" usually are lies of omission, straw men arguments, and out of context  snippets.  Like your above quote for example: You refer to one half of the statement given by our Holy Father that doesn't contain error and only refer to that, however, flippantly gloss over the second half which is a blatant error at best, a rejection of Catholic Dogma at worst. Tell me, how do you give the silent approval to the aforementioned statement that claims the face of God is concealed in the religions - religions, that's plural by the way - and still haughtily claim to be one of the few real orthodox Catholics amidst a sea of imposters?

[JayneK]

So now the inter religious meeting at Assisi was about correcting atheist claims, and not praying for and promoting false peace in the absence of Christ? Sure... got any more lies you feel like feeding us? Last I knew a Pope preaching errors was something any Church loving Catholic would carry on about

"These people are seeking the truth, they
are seeking the true God, whose image is frequently concealed in the
religions because of the ways in which they are often practised."

- Pope Benedict 16 @ Assisi

The meetings at Assisi were indeed about countering atheist claims by showing people of different religions cooperating to pray for peace.  I could provide evidence to support this but I don't bother to give carefully researched answers to people who accuse me of lying.  

Can you explain why you think that the quote from Pope Benedict above is preaching error?  What is wrong with saying that people in false religions are seeking truth?  He didn't say that they have the truth.

Fair enough, I've read your posts, and what you call "carefully researched answers" usually are lies of omission, straw men arguments, and out of context  snippets.  Like your above quote for example: You refer to one half of the statement given by our Holy Father that doesn't contain error and only refer to that, however, flippantly gloss over the second half which is a blatant error at best, a rejection of Catholic Dogma at worst. Tell me, how do you give the silent approval to the aforementioned statement that claims the face of God is concealed in the religions - religions, that's plural by the way - and still haughtily claim to be one of the few real orthodox Catholics amidst a sea of imposters?

I really don't understand what problem you are having with this quote.  Perhaps you could explain what you think it means in your own words.  I think it is saying that the good elements (i.e. the face of God) in false religions are concealed by the bad elements.  Why would anyone think this is against Church teaching?

[JayneK]

Let me pose to everyone the question I asked Stubborn earlier.  What exactly is Pope Benedict supposed to have done at Assisi 3 that was so terrible and what evidence is there that he actually did it?  I have seen a lot of vague ranting about how horrid and scandalous it was but it merely assumes that he is guilty.

So, does that mean it is no longer sinful to pray with them - or does it mean it never was sinful to pray with them?

Or is it only ok for the pope to pray with them now - or - has it always been ok only for the pope to pray with them - - -- or - can you post any pre-V2 popes who have prayed with leaders of false religions?

Is it ok for you to keep claiming that the pope was praying with them when you offer no evidence that this actually happened?  The format of Assis 3 was supposed to prevent any situations of Catholics praying with non-Catholics.  If you have some reason to think that such praying was happening in spite of the Pope's instructions, you have some obligation to state it.  All you do is pose rhetorical questions based on the assumption that he was praying with them.

Good heavens JayneK, read what I asked.

Did I say pope Benedict or did I say pope? You still not answering clear questions with a clear answer?

You have yet to show how Assisi 3 was good for the Church (which is in a crisis for the last 50 years already BTW) good for the salvation of souls, good for conversions, good for a more devout interior life, good for vocations, good for priests and nuns, good for learning institutions, good for combating abortion and on and on the list goes - basically, how on earth do you suppose that Assisi 3 profited anyone's spiritual well being amongst the crisis at all?

Well shoot, there I go asking questions again 

If you read over the exchange above, you will see that I asked a question which you answered by asking another question.  I assumed your question was a rhetorical one and was supposed to be the answer to my question:  "What exactly is Pope Benedict supposed to have done and what evidence is there he did it?"  Of course I thought you were talking about him.

The Assisi gatherings had the good intention of showing that atheist claims about the detrimental effects of religion were wrong.  It is still too soon to tell if the gatherings succeeded in this at all, but opposing false claims of atheists is a good thing.

[JayneK]

It was the fact that INPEFESS gave his own interpretation, and one so different from the traditional understanding of the Church, that seemed Protestant to me.

Please support this claim by showing where I offered any such interpretation. I posted the text as an example of an application of the basic Christian principle he gave us in Eph. 5:11. I offered no interpretation of it.

You claimed that the Scripture passage you quoted settled the matter.  That implied an interpretation.