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

[JMartyr]

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.

An atheist was actually invited to speak there as well.

[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.

[Jackson K. Eskew]

How is 'exposing' it good for the church (it was hardly hidden)? Also what good does bellyaching on internet forums do? It is gossip at that point. RCTV chose not to cover it because what good would it do to report it?

All of this is addressed early in the thread. Read it.

“Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.” (Eph. 5:11).

[knittycat]

"Because" does not strike me as an answer that an adult would give when a question is asked. It seems more like the answer a child would give.

[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?

[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.

2) He was willfully present at the meeting, which shows that he was complicit in them.

3) He willfully participated in the meeting, which shows that he was complicit in them.

4) He did not preach the necessity of conversion to the Catholic Church in order be saved, which destroys any redeeming value the meeting could have.

5) He exhorted them to live out their (false) faiths for the cause of peace in the world, which betrays the teachings of Christ.

[JayneK]

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

[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.

[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? 

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?

[Old Salt]

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?

I am sure Pope Benedict XVI did nothing sinful at Assisi, my problem with any of the Assisi meetings including this one is that many [wrongfully] percieve this as religious indifferntism and they [wrongfully] are scandalised to believe that there are many paths to God.
It might be their fault to not investigate this more fully but I have spoken to at least two Catholics who think that there are other ways to pray to God, because the HF prayed with them.