This may be exactly it and I really thank God it is all being brought about at this moment, just when they are trying to poison us with new doctrines. It feels like the answer to the prayer "Lord deign to humiliate the enemies of the Church!" for their own good and the good of all the the faithful. Ut inimícos sanctæ Ecclésiæ humiliare dignéris. Te rogamus, audi nos! (Litany of the Saints)
Well....it strikes me that as horrible as these instances are, that there may be something else that is happening behind the scenes spiritually or theologically that we are meant to be distracted from. The outrage is justified but is it also being manipulated or manufactured? Or timed well? Not exactly sure, just thinking out loud.
Isn; it wonderful if true? But this wicked stuff lay buried for decades. It surely can't be an accidnet if it is surfacing just now. God be praised!!
It looks like Brian's thread on conservative Catholicism since Vatican II has been hi jacked by the scandals. It's that subject that most here won't touch with a ten foot pole.
Concerning the topic of the thread, here is an absolutely excellent piece by Fr Ripperger on the difference between traditionalists and neo conservatives. As always, Fr Ripperger is never sensationalist but always highly intellectual and educated in what he discusses, and I think most here will be highly enlightened by this article. I'd post it in its entirety but it's a bit long to post. I will put up a section, read the rest at the link below Conservative vs. Traditional Catholicism by Fr. Chad Ripperger, F.S.S.P. - Spring 2001 Distinctions with Philosophical Differences In 1996, a group of friends had lunch in Rome at the Czechoslovakian college. One of the priests who offers Mass according to the new rite was a bit dumbfounded. He had written an article in which he had discussed certain aspects of the liturgical reform. His puzzlement came from the fact that traditionalists had attacked his article and he could not understand why. A traditionalist seminarian said to the priest, “We agree that something has to be done about the liturgy, but we do not agree on what should be done.” Traditionalists and neoconservatives often find each other mystifying, and the reason for this has to do with the relationship each position holds with respect to ecclesiastical tradition. The term “traditionalist” has two different meanings. The first is the heresy condemned by the Church, i.e., a philosophical/religious system that depreciates human reason and establishes the tradition of mankind as the only criterion for truth and certainty. This heresy denies the ability of reason to know the truth and thus maintains that truth must be gained through tradition alone. It is different from the current movement in the Church which clearly recognizes the ability of reason to know the truth but which sees the good of the tradition of the Church and would like to see it re-established. The term “neoconservative,” on the other hand, refers to those who are considered the more conservative members of the Church. More often than not they hold orthodox positions, but they would not assert that it is strictly necessary to reconnect with ecclesiastical tradition. The prefix “neo” is used because they are not the same as those conservatives in authority in the Church immediately before, during and after the Second Vatican Council. The current conservatives, that is, the neoconservatives, are different insofar as the conservatives of the earlier period sought to maintain the current ecclesiastical traditions that were eventually lost. http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_2001_sp_ripperger.html
They go hand in hand. Somewhere there’s a meme that says something along the lines that Traditional Liturgy and traditional theology/ morality go hand in hand. Notice the greatest opponents of Tradition are homosexualists.
Jarg, Exactly. We may actually be witnessing the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Our Lady. It's amazing. DM, It's all related, isn't it though? This crisis started before Vatican II and the depravity in the world affected the council. Before and after the council the Church just like much of humanity attempted to hide its sins and then they festered and grew and brought us to where we are now. Personally, I am looking toward the future and I'm continuing to pray especially for those who are trying to make things better for the future of the Church. Many prophecies speak of a glorious renewal of the Church, I'm praying that this will happen soon. In addition, I feel that trying to blame this crisis on any one factor is not very constructive and there are plenty of other websites that do that sort of thing. gracia, I wonder if satan wants us to try and place blame on one particular thing and to not put our focus on our own repentance for our own sins. I am not saying that those clergy who are guilty of abuse should not repent, etc. but satan's goal is to destroy the Church and he may be creating a lot of discord between the members of the Church to achieve his goal.
Good post , Carol Yes, as always, first and foremost is our responsibility for our own sins, to repent and believe in the Gospel and to persevere in prayer I agree with you that we may actually be witnessing the Triumph of Our Lady’s Heart We just don’t know it yet All that is rotten has to fall
Absolutely, it is related. However if you read the article I posted by Fr Ripperger, it goes far deeper than that. The morality problems are merely a result of what happens when we change our mindset about the Faith.
St Peter Damian wrote The Book of Gomorrah 900 years ago, imploring the Pope to take action against sodomy in the Church There were no Modernists then, just sodomites
Thanks. When it comes to hypocrisy, there's plenty of it around, not least among the people who sang dumb about Hollywood and the likes of Harvey Weinstein for years. That Attorney General's political friends are responsible for public schools and institutions. How would those institutions stand up to the same level of scrutiny applied to the Catholic Church? For us Catholics, focusing on what happened 50/70 years ago and has been largely corrected is a distraction from what needs addressing now, which is the bullying of faithful seminarians by those who make a mockery of chastity. The likes of CNN who rejoice to see bakers put out of business will be equally happy to see the same kind of oppression in our Church unless and until they can use it to denigrate the all male, celibate priesthood.
While I do agree that homosexuals are great opponents, I think the greatest opponents of Tradition are those who hold the heresy of Modernism (which may and often does include homosexuals) as described and condemned by Popes Leo XIII and Pius X. One of the great loses of the Church was when Paul VI approved the CDF to drop the Oath Against Modernism in 1967 that Pius X ordered in 1910. I can personally attest that I have heard EVERY SINGLE ONE of the points below opposed from the mouth of "Catholics." Why he had the Oath dropped, I have no idea, but it was a TERRIBLE idea. The Church is riddled with Modernists today. The actual heresy of Modernism is discussed more in depth in Pascendi Dominici Gregis (On the Doctrine of the Modernists), Praestantia Scripturae (On the Bible Against the Modernists), Lamentabili Sane (Syllabus Condemning the Errors of the Modernists). The Oath Against Modernism Pope Pius X - 1910 To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries. I . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day. And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:19), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated: Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time. Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time. Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely. Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our creator and lord. Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili,especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas. I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion. I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality-that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful. Likewise, I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm. Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a professor lecturing or writing on a historico-theological subject should first put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever; and that they should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical documents. Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way. I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. . . http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius10/p10moath.htm
Someday, the Immaculate Heart will triumph. Someday. More and more Protestants are beginning to question the five solas, history, and denominationalism. Yay! And are moving closer to the Church, at least in the conclusions they come to in their hearts. We have to wait for God to act in God's way, though. We can't rush Him, and if we leave everything to Mary, we have to put everything down. And let her fight. Not that we don't pray or fight spiritually or do our part, we do. But we have to be willing to surrender our will to hers. It will get more intense, personally and globally. But we have to stay quiet, use the weapons given us, fight a silent battle with all our might, and pray. Follow Christ. The Cross and the Rosary. We have these things. Let's use them. Our world is about to get tiny, and silent. That is my impression. It could be wrong, but that seems to be coming. I can't explain why, it is a feeling.
The article by Fr Ripperger is excellent indeed. I feel it worth posting the following excerpt: (emphasis is mine) "This problem is exacerbated by our current historical conditions. As the theological community began to unravel before, during and after Vatican II, those who considered themselves orthodox were those who were obedient and intellectually submissive to the Magisterium, since those who dissented were not orthodox. Therefore the standard of orthodoxy was shifted from Scripture, intrinsic tradition (of which the Magisterium is a part) and extrinsic tradition (which includes magisterial acts of the past, such as Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors), to a psychological state in which only the current Magisterium is followed. Neoconservatives have fallen into this way of thinking. The only standard by which they judge orthodoxy is whether or not one follows the current Magisterium. As a general rule, traditionalists tend to be orthodox in the sense that they are obedient to the current Magisterium, even though they disagree about matters of discipline and have some reservations about certain aspects of current magisterial teachings that seem to contradict the previous Magisterium (e.g., the role of the ecumenical movement). Traditionalists tend to take not just the current Magisterium as their norm but also Scripture, intrinsic tradition, extrinsic tradition and the current Magisterium as the principles of judgment of correct Catholic thinking. This is what distinguishes traditionalists and neoconservatives Inevitably, this magisterialism has led to a form of positivism. Since there are no principles of judgment other than the current Magisterium, whatever the current Magisterium says is always what is “orthodox.” In other words, psychologically the neoconservatives have been left in a position in which the extrinsic and intrinsic tradition are no longer included in the norms of judging whether something is orthodox or not. As a result, whatever comes out of the Vatican, regardless of its authoritative weight, is to be held, even if it contradicts what was taught with comparable authority in the past. Since non-infallible ordinary acts of the Magisterium can be erroneous, this leaves one in a precarious situation if one takes as true only what the current Magisterium says. While we are required to give religious assent even to the non-infallible teachings of the Church, what are we to do when a magisterial document contradicts other current or previous teachings and one does not have any more authoritative weight than the other? It is too simplistic merely to say that we are to follow the current teaching. What would happen if in a period of crisis, like our own, a non-infallible ordinary magisterial teaching contradicted what was in fact the truth? If one part of the Magisterium contradicts another, both being at the same level, which is to believed? Unfortunately, what has happened is that many neoconservatives have acted as if non-infallible ordinary magisterial teachings (such as, for instance, the role of inculturation in the liturgy as stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church) are, in fact, infallible when the current Magisterium promulgates them. This is a positivist mentality. Many of the things that neoconservatives do are the result of implicitly adopting principles that they have not fully or explicitly considered. Many of them would deny this characterization because they do not intellectually hold to what, in fact, are their operative principles. As the positivism and magisterialism grew and the extrinsic tradition no longer remained a norm for judging what should and should not be done, neoconservatives accepted the notion that the Church must adapt to the modern world. Thus rather than helping the modern world to adapt to the teachings of the Church, the reverse process has occurred. This has led to an excessive concern with holding politically correct positions on secular matters. Rather than having a certain distrust of the world – which Christ exhorts us to have – many priests will teach something from the pulpit only as long as it is not going to cause problems. For example, how many priests are willing to preach against anti-scriptural feminism? The fact is that they have adopted an immanentized way of looking at what should be done, often from an emotional point of view. Coupled with political correctness, this has incapacitated ecclesiastical authorities in the face of the world and within the Church herself where the process of immanentization, with its flawed understanding of the nature of man and his condition as laboring under Original Sin, has severely undermined discipline. Even those who try to be orthodox have become accustomed to softer disciplinary norms, which fit fallen nature well, resulting in a lack of detachment from the current way of doing things and a consequent reluctance by neoconservatives to exercise authority – precisely because they lack the vital detachment required to do so. All of the aforesaid has resulted in neoconservative rejection of the extrinsic tradition as the norm. This is why, even in “good” seminaries, the spiritual patrimony of the saints is virtually never taught. Moreover, this accounts for why the neoconservatives appear confused about the real meaning of tradition. Since it is not a principle of judgment for them, they are unable to discuss it in depth. In fact, they ignore extrinsic tradition almost as much as do the “liberals.” Even when neoconservatives express a desire to recover and follow the extrinsic tradition, they rarely do so when it comes to making concrete decisions. (Cont'd)
It now becomes clearer why there is a kind of psychological suspicion between neoconservatives and traditionalists: they have fundamentally different perspectives. The neoconservatives have psychologically or implicitly accepted that extrinsic tradition cannot be trusted, whereas the traditionalists hold to the extrinsic tradition as something good, something that is the product of the wisdom and labor of the saints and the Church throughout history. For this reason, the fundamental difference between neoconservatives and traditionalists is that the neoconservative looks at the past through the eyes of the present while the traditionalist looks at the present through the eyes of the past. Historically, the mens ecclesiae or mind of the Church was expressed through the extrinsic tradition. That is to say that the Church, since it receives both its teaching from the past and the labor of the saints and previous Magisterium by tradition, always looked at the present through the eyes of the past. In this, she looked at the present not as man under the influence of modern philosophy looked at the present, but through the eyes of her Lord Who gave her His teaching when He was on earth (i.e., in the past). Only at the time of Christ was it possible to look authentically at the past through what was then the eyes of the present, since Christ was the fulfillment of the past. But once the work of Christ became part of history and He ascended into heaven, we must always look back to Christ and to our tradition for an authentic understanding of the present. This fundamental shift in perspective has left traditionalists with the sense that they are fighting for the good of the extrinsic tradition without the help of and often hindered by the current Magisterium. Liturgically, traditionalists judge the Novus Ordo in light of the Mass of Pius V and the neoconservatives judge the Tridentine Mass, as it is called, in light of the Novus Ordo. This comes from Hegelianism, which holds that the past is always understood in light of the present; the thesis and antithesis are understood in light of their synthesis. This outlook leads to a mentality that newer is always better, because the synthesis is better than either the thesis or the antithesis taken alone. Being affected by this, the neoconservatives are often incapable of imagining that the current discipline of the Church may not be as good as the prior discipline. There is a mentality today that holds that “because it is present [Hegelianism], because it comes from us [immanentism], it is necessarily better.” Furthermore, neoconservatives’ very love for the Church and strong emotional attachment to the Magisterium cause them to find it unimaginable that the Church could ever falter, even with regard to matters of discipline. Like the father who loves his daughter and therefore has a hard time imagining her doing anything wrong, neoconservatives have a hard time conceiving that the Holy Ghost does not guarantee infallibility in matters of discipline or non-infallible ordinary magisterial teaching. Traditionalists, confronted by a Church in crisis, know that something has gone wrong somewhere. As a result, they are, I believe, more sober in assessing whether or not the Church exercises infallibility in a given case. That, allied to their looking at the present through the eyes of the past, helps traditionalists to see that the onus is on the present, not the past, to justify itself. The dominance of Hegelianism and immanentism also led to a form of collective ecclesiastical amnesia. During the early1960s, there existed a generation that was handed the entire ecclesiastical tradition, for the tradition was still being lived. However, because they labored under the aforesaid errors, that generation chose not to pass on the ecclesiastical tradition to the subsequent generation as something living. Consequently, in one generation, the extrinsic tradition virtually died out. By the late 1960s and early 1970s, seminary and university formation in the Catholic Church excluded those things that pertained to the ecclesiastical tradition. Once the prior generation had chosen this course – not to remember and teach the things of the past – the tradition was never passed on and thus those whom they trained (the current generation) were consigned to suffer collective ignorance about their patrimony and heritage. A further effect of what we have considered is that no prior teaching has been left untouched. In other words, it appears as if more documentation has been issued in the last forty years than in the previous 1,960. Every past teaching, if the current Magisterium deems it worthy of note to modern man, is touched upon anew and viewed through the lens of present-day immanentism. The impression is given that the teachings of the previous Magisterium cannot stand on their own and must be given some form of “relevance” by being promulgated anew in a current document. Moreover, the current documents often lack the clarity and succinctness of the prior Magisterium, and, with relatively few exceptions, are exceedingly long and tedious to read in their entirety. As a result, the frequency of the documents, taken together with their length, have eroded their authority because, as a general rule, people simply do not have the emotional or psychological discipline to plow through them. In summary, then, the differences between traditionalists and neoconservatives are rooted in their respective attitudes to extrinsic or ecclesiastical tradition. Even if a neoconservative holds notionally9 that the extrinsic tradition is of value, nevertheless in the daily living of his life and in his deliberations he simply ignores a large portion if not all of it. But there is hope, even outside the circles that hold to tradition. Many of the young, even those in neoconservative seminaries, are no longer weighed down by the intellectual baggage that afflicted their counterparts of the previous generation. Because they have been taught virtually nothing about religion, they lack a perspective that might influence them negatively in favor of one particular view of extrinsic tradition. Many of them are eager to learn the truth and do not have any preconceived ideas about the current state of the Church. As a result, if they are provided with or are able to arrive at the knowledge of their patrimony, many seeking it out on their own, then we can be assured of a brighter future. But this requires knowledge of the problem and the willingness to adopt or connect to the extrinsic tradition by embracing it as something good. It is unlikely that the role of ecclesiastical tradition will be sorted out soon, but we can hope that its restoration is part of God’s providential plan.
Saint John Paul II was ratified as a saint by the Holy Catholic Church on 27 April 2014. I am wary about continuing to defend St John Paul II sanctity because it may have little to no effect but more especially it may inflame some to increased dissidence. Let me first agree that religious pluralism is not a Catholic Church’s teaching. This is clear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but also in John Paul II’s 1990 Encyclical Redemptoris missio, as well as the 2000 CDF document, Dominus Iesus In 1986 Saint John Paul II addressed the Roman Curia "Christmas Address to the Roman Curia", This document can be cited as it explains the meaning of the world day of Peace at Assisi in 1986. Saint John Paul II identifies three important dimensions of our world: 1] the orders of creation, 2] the fall into sin, and 3] redemption in Jesus Christ. The order of creation is the ground of universal human identity as God’s image bearer and of the unity of all members of the human family in a divine origin. Man is stamped in his created nature with the dynamic of desiring God because we have been created by Him and for Him. Thus, all men have a radical unity because we have one single origin and goal. The order of redemption finds its central point in Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh, says John Paul, quoting Nostra aetate §2, “in whom men find the fullness of their religious life, and in whom God has reconciled all things to himself.” This order grounds the universal scope of the atoning work of Christ. In his infinite, all-embracing love, God desires the salvation of all men in Christ. (1 Tim 2:4-6) According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “Jesus, the Son of God, freely suffered death for us in complete and free submission to the will of God, his Father. By his death he has conquered death, and so opened the possibility of salvation to all men.” (§1019) Yet the Council of Trent said, “even though ‘Christ died for all’ [2 Cor 5:15], still not all do receive the benefit of His death, but those only to whom the merit of His passion is imparted.” So although it is profoundly true that “all men are called to salvation by the grace of God” (Lumen gentium §13), there is a basic difference between “offer” and “call,” on the one hand, and actuality of reception on the other. In between the orders of divine creation and redemption is the order of the fall into sin. John Paul puts “religious differences” in this context because they do not “derive from the design of God.” He says, “If it is the order of unity that goes back to creation and redemption and is, therefore, in this sense, ‘divine,’ such differences – and even religious divergences – go back to a ‘human fact’, and must be overcome in progress towards the realization of the mighty plan of [salvific] unity which dominates the creation.” Religious diversity, then, belongs to the order of the fall into sin because it reflects the human reception of that “offer,” “call,” and “grace.” Man is open to resistance and hence to distorting, misinterpreting, and rejecting God’s revelation in creation and redemption in Christ. John Paul says these differences reveal “the limitations, the evolutions, and the falls of the human spirit which is undermined by the spirit of evil in history.” (Lumen gentium 16) He adds, these religious differences are such that they “are diverse and mutually incompatible,” so much so that “one can also feel that their divisions are insuperable.” Yes, John Paul also says that the Church does not hold that non-Christian religions are completely false in all the claims they make, but only in those that are logically incompatible with Christian truth claims. So, as Vatican II says, “The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions.” (Nostra aetate §2) At the same time the Church unequivocally affirms “the duty of the Church’s preaching to proclaim the cross of Christ as the sign of God’s all-embracing love and as the fountain from which every grace flows.” This means as John Paul explains, “that the Church is called to work with all her energies (evangelization, prayer, dialogue) so that the wounds and divisions of men – which separate them from their Origin and Goal, and make them hostile to one another – may be healed. . . .consolidated, and raised up” in accordance with the salvific plan of God in Jesus Christ. According to the Church, “dialogue does not necessarily exclude other forms of contact, such as, among others, apologetics, confrontation, and discussion.” The deep structure “of the created unity of the human race, and of the unity of the salvific work of Christ,” says John Paul, as well as the positive elements within non-Christian religions, expresses “that all those who have not yet received the Gospel are ‘oriented’ [Lumen gentium §16] toward the supreme unity of the people of God.” By virtue of the “real and objective value of this ‘orientation,’” there is a basis, not only for dialogue but also evangelization. For evangelization, because these religious people belong to God’s people in potentiality, is only a possibility, not a reality. This possibility is rooted in the “power of Christ, which is sufficient [but not efficacious] for the salvation of the whole human race.” Finally, Assisi was called to encourage the “maintaining of good fellowship among the nations” (1 Pet 2:12), and, if possible, as far as depends on one, to live at peace with all men.” (Rom 12:18)
I'm sorry, I know you tried, but absolutely NOTHING you have said explains or justifies allowing a statue of Buddha, a PAGAN god, to be placed on top of a TABERNACLE. NO ONE has dared to respond to this, because there is NO EXCUSE to be had. Most of what you have responded with its post conciliar. You know that the church has more documents than since the 1960s? I would fill way too much space here in quoting all the Church documents that condemn this type of ecumenism with full force.
I don't get it. Do these actions of Pope JPII not bother Catholics? If today, your priest welcomed a Buddhist monk to your church for 'ecumenical prayers', and that monk placed a Buddha statue on top of the tabernacle, would you smile and say it is all good, because it is done https://remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-pope errs.htm "Contrast this to what St. Paul said of Christians consorting with pagan religions. In 2 Corinthians 6:16-17 he writes: What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said: “I will live with them and move among them, and I will be their God and they shall be my people. Therefore, come forth from them and be separate,” says the Lord, “and touch nothing unclean; then I will receive you.” the pope (JPII) kissed the Koran (1999), asked John the Baptist to protect Islam (2000), prayed with an African animist (1985), invited pagan religions to Assisi to pray for world peace (1986, 2002) On August 8, 1985, John Paul II speaks of his meeting with African animists as: “The prayer meeting in the sanctuary at Lake Togo was particularly striking. There I prayed for the first time with animists” (Peter Lovest Thou Me? John Paul II: Pope of Tradition or Pope of Revolution, p. 154). It is also reported that during this meeting, while standing with the voodoo chieftan before a snake in the center of town, John Paul cast cucumber peelings on the ground in front of its entrance. Moments later, a serpent slithered forth from it. The chieftan then turned to the Pope exclaiming that the reptile’s appearance meant the snake-god had favored his offering. The pope is said to have nodded in acknowledgment."
