(Controversial; TAW only) Orthodox position on the first Assisi event of 1986?

[TheLostCoin]

In 1986, Pope John Paul II organized the first world day of prayer, in which representatives from all the major religions of the world came together to all say a prayer for the purposes of peace.
While many conservative and traditional Catholics at this time were perhaps scandalized at the prospect that the Pope was going to be praying with non-Catholic Christians and pagans, nevertheless Pope John Paul II made clear in his writings that they weren't "praying together," but rather "coming together to pray."

During this meeting, representatives of each of the religions came up and said a prayer publicly to their God or gods, or perhaps just a theological statement of their own religious beliefs, while being allowed to perform their own actions of prayer - for example, a Native American chieftain smoked a peace pipe. After this, each religious organization was allocated a religious space to worship their own God or gods. More interesting was the fact that many Pagan and non-Christian religions were given Churches as worship spaces to perform their own religious rites - the most notable example being the Buddhists, who placed a statue of Buddha above the altar, above the Eucharist.

Indeed, delegates from the Orthodox Churches of Finland and Czechoslovakia, the Patriarchate of Bulgaria, the Patriarchate of Romania, the Patriarchate of Georgia, the Patriarchate of Moscow, the Patriarchate of Antioch, and the Patriarchate of Constantinople all took part in this religious meeting.

What is the Orthodox position on this meeting? Was there anything particularly wrong about this meeting? Is there an endorsement of this meeting considering that a good portion of the Orthodox Churches sent a delegate to partake in this meeting? Did this meeting violate the principle of praying "in sacris," that is, praying together with non-Orthodox religious groups? Or was this meeting acceptable? Was there anything wrong with allocating a Church space to pagan and non-Christian groups?

 

[ArmyMatt]

going there to talk is fine, anything else is wrong.

plus, it only showed what a heretic Pope John Paul II was, and how enticing the heresies of ecumenism and secularism are.

these kinds of things make my stomach turn.

 

[Lukaris]

Upside down worldly witness to an ambiguous, worldly notion of “love.” The usual hierarchical neglect to teach us the basic promise of the Lord that He will save those who have done good & condemn those who have done evil ( John 5:22-30). This can be anyone but not everyone; we are to pray the salvation of ourselves & that of our neighbor. We need not dwell on non Christian groupings for some empty, feel good frenzy.

 

[dzheremi]

For the life of me I will never understand the need that some have to come together with non-Christians to pray, even if it's not "praying together". Do they feel that Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, etc. somehow worship God, despite the clear teaching that He who has not the Son has not the Father either? Are we now to give honor to anyone who can count to one, no matter what their one consists of? Is "God" an empty, contentless label that we simply affix to whatever set of attributes we want, in accordance with whatever religion, and not He Who was incarnate, came into the world through His love for man, and at the appointed time was crucified for us, and rose from the dead on the third day, vanquishing death itself by His death, and forever freeing us from it?

It is a slap in the face to everything about Christianity to even conceive of such a thing. Thank God there is forgiveness for any who may have been pressured into going to that kind of event, or blessing it in any way. Everyone may already pray in his own space according to his own religion, so why was this really such a necessary thing? Maybe the Pope or the RCC want good PR, but the result is only that they appear to be soft on the basics of Christian theology, and are instead lead around by the spirit of the world and the age, which is not God. Lord have mercy.

 

[~Anastasia~]

What I think rather scandalizes me especially is giving over sacred space in the Church to pagans to allow them to set up their idols and make prayers to whatever god(s) they subscribe to. I'm not denying them having their religious items, beliefs, rites, and prayers. But the CHURCH was consecrated and set apart for that purpose, and a statue from a non-Christian religion brought in and placed above the Eucharist is - simply unthinkable to me on many levels.

Of course I don't know what kind of altar it was or what their beliefs about it are. But I know what ours are, and from that point of view, it's shocking.

 

[ArmyMatt]

What I think rather scandalizes me especially is giving over sacred space in the Church to pagans to allow them to set up their idols and make prayers to whatever god(s) they subscribe to. I'm not denying them having their religious items, beliefs, rites, and prayers. But the CHURCH was consecrated and set apart for that purpose, and a statue from a non-Christian religion brought in and placed above the Eucharist is - simply unthinkable to me on many levels.

Of course I don't know what kind of altar it was or what their beliefs about it are. But I know what ours are, and from that point of view, it's shocking.

I brought that up to a Roman Catholic and he just shrugged and said the Pope can violate even their own canons and teachings because he's the Pope...

I wish I was kidding.

 

[zippy2006]

plus, it only showed what a heretic Pope John Paul II was, and how enticing the heresies of ecumenism and secularism are.

What specific heresy was he guilty of?

 

[dzheremi]

I brought that up to a Roman Catholic and he just shrugged and said the Pope can violate even their own canons and teachings because he's the Pope...

I wish I was kidding.

Meanwhile, my Church's holy synod deposed a Pope as recently as the 1950s for succumbing to an insidious group of influence peddlers around him (he was old and unfit to govern, as he would later say himself after being retired to a monastery, and so they set themselves up as his 'handlers' of sorts, usurping what should have been his powers and practicing simony and other evils, in complete violation of the canons), and your own deposed a patriarch in Jerusalem only in 2005 for what I gather were unauthorized or otherwise sketchy land deals with Israeli developers.

Say what you will about the actions taken or the actions that led to them, the point is that the RCC has left itself in a highly unenviable and self-harming position by embracing an ecclesiology that leaves them at the mercy of the man in the chair, as though the Church was made for the man himself. I don't recall that even in any of the proof-texts I heard while I was RC, but that is the reality on the ground insofar as you can clearly see RCs who are unhappy with the present Pope, for instance, and say that things will hopefully be better with a more conservative guy. Okay then, fine, but why is it essentially then the luck of the draw? And why on God's green Earth do they see this ecclesiology as arguably their strongest point, i.e., "We are in communion with the true successor of St. Peter, and you (non-Catholics) are not! But you should be!" Was not Peter withstood to his face by St. Paul for being in the wrong on the subject of the Judaizing tendencies of some in the Church in his day? Where was his papal infallibility then?

It's madness. I truly do love the people of the RCC and was very sad and conflicted for a while about leaving on that account, but personal holiness or piety does not make the insane monkeyhouse that is modern RC ecclesiology suddenly okay. Look how it hurts them. Look how they can't do anything about it because "hey, he's the Pope" or whatever. So what? If HH Pope Tawadros II visited my apartment tomorrow and suddenly started spouting a bunch of nonsense about other religions and how we need to recognize them as being "together with us" in the worship of the one God (cf. CCC 841), I would first call my bishop and then if I didn't get a proper response I would I suppose call my local EO church, because that is not acceptable at all. At some level if you don't have leaders willing to stand up and say "No, the line is definitely here, and we will neither cross it nor allow anyone in our church to cross it, regardless of rank", you don't really have anything. Or rather, you wouldn't if you just had to live with whatever nonsense because. Because St. Peter or because St. Mark or because whatever. No. No that is all terribly wrong.

Thanks be to god for men like HG Bishop Abanoub who cleaned out the filth of Protestantism that had festered in the Church of St. Simon the Tanner at Mt. Mokattam, and many more like him taking on similar problems in D.C. and Canada. And that's at least another form of Christianity (Protestantism, I mean)...Buddhist monks showing up and attempting to set up a Buddha statue above the altar or whatever would probably be physically removed. Or at least I hope to God...

Translation from the uploader for the second video, since they're not hard encoded: "Here we will sing Orthodox hymns, which all 20 million Coptic Orthodox rejoice in. He who wants to sing Protestant, or non-Orthodox, hymns is free to leave along with those we have already sent out, and we here will sing Orthodox hymns." (emphasis added)

The RCC and I would think all churches and communions deserve at least this level of fidelity...that they don't get it, and indeed actively refuse it for the sake of being "faithfully Catholic" or whatever, is easily as much of a scandal to me as a former RC as the event itself is. Did you check your brains at the door, RC people? I don't think they did/do, but to hear some of the apologetics I wouldn't hold it against someone who sincerely formed that impression. There is a difference between being formed in the mind of the Church and being so slavishly devoted to the ecclesiological idea of an office that you put up with things that you know in your heart and soul are wrong.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I was baptized under the auspices of my then-local bishop, not into the inviolable sacredness of his office such that if he does something stupid and scandalous I can't say anything. Remembering my baptismal vows would make me more likely to say something, as I professed the faith in the God-man, the incarnate Word Jesus Christ, Who is a totally different guy than my bishop.

</rant>

Sorry. I guess I haven't totally worked through all my stereotypical ex-Catholic angries...trying to keep them in check for the sake of politeness and showing forth brotherliness might not be the most healthy thing to do 100% of the time. Lord have mercy. It upsets me because of the position it puts the people in. I'm willing to bet that the people didn't say "You know what this church needs? A Buddha statue." But the ecclesiology breeds spiritual sickness. The fish rots from the head down, as the saying goes, and probably nowhere is that more true than the RC communion, due to this lack of effective oversight and the incredibly dangerous belief that the Pope is incapable of embracing heresy due to this or that technical sophistry from Vatican I in 1870. Bleh.

<okay, seriously /rant>

 

[TheLostCoin]

Sorry. I guess I haven't totally worked through all my stereotypical ex-Catholic angries...

Well dude, you are doing far better than me, who posted this in the first place. I mean, while this was a question that didn't come out of absolutely nowhere, no doubt my feelings of anger, sadness, betrayal, and to some extent, grievous loss, aided in pushing me to post this.

Maybe I should take a break from the forum; I oftentimes feel like I'm speaking up in cases when I shouldn't be, or I want immediate, gratifying, logical answers to things that people can't immediately, gratifyingly, and logically provide sometimes.

 

[zippy2006]

But the ecclesiology breeds spiritual sickness. The fish rots from the head down, as the saying goes, and probably nowhere is that more true than the RC communion, due to this lack of effective oversight and the incredibly dangerous belief that the Pope is incapable of embracing heresy due to this or that technical sophistry from Vatican I in 1870. Bleh.

Two quick points:

First, ecclesiological hierarchy is a difficult question. Orthodox forms of conciliarism have their problems, too. The original ecclesiology of the Church was clearly monarchical when Jesus walked the earth. After that we returned to the perennial problem of divine monarch vs. human monarch. Apart from all that, for Catholics and Orthodox this isn't primarily a question of pragmatism or consequence. It is a question of truth, and divine providence is not incapable of guiding either ecclesiology.

Second, these ideas of "slavish obedience" and "incapacity to embrace heresy" are historically and theologically bankrupt. That's just not how the Papacy works. Your more careful criticisms have some validity to them, but they crumble at these extremes.

For example, Francis could be deposed on charge of heresy, and some are interested in such a course of action. In reality that threat will probably not come to fruition and yet it does hem him in and inject a certain amount of conservatism.

 

[ArmyMatt]

What specific heresy was he guilty of?

for this specific thread, ecumenism. he allowed idols to be placed on altars...

 

[ArmyMatt]

Two quick points:

First, ecclesiological hierarchy is a difficult question. Orthodox forms of conciliarism have their problems, too. The original ecclesiology of the Church was clearly monarchical when Jesus walked the earth. After that we returned to the perennial problem of divine monarch vs. human monarch. Apart from all that, for Catholics and Orthodox this isn't primarily a question of pragmatism or consequence. It is a question of truth, and divine providence is not incapable of guiding either ecclesiology.

Second, these ideas of "slavish obedience" and "incapacity to embrace heresy" are historically and theologically bankrupt. That's just not how the Papacy works. Your more careful criticisms have some validity to them, but they crumble at these extremes.

For example, Francis could be deposed on charge of heresy, and some are interested in such a course of action. In reality that threat will probably not come to fruition and yet it does hem him in and inject a certain amount of conservatism.

we're still monarchial since Christ is still alive and with us as High Priest and King.

 

[Lost4words]

I brought that up to a Roman Catholic and he just shrugged and said the Pope can violate even their own canons and teachings because he's the Pope...

I wish I was kidding.

Obviously that Catholic was completely wrong.

Having just seen this thread. I highly disagree what St Pope John Paul ll did at that time. Especially the part allowing false religions to use Christian churches. And allowing a statue of a Buddha to be placed above the Eucharist!

Very very sad indeed.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Obviously that Catholic was completely wrong.

Having just seen this thread. I highly disagree what St Pope John Paul ll did at that time. Especially the part allowing false religions to use Christian churches. And allowing a statue of a Buddha to be placed above the Eucharist!

Very very sad indeed.

I wish it was one isolated event, but Pope John Paul II as well as Pope Benedict both did it on more than one occasion.

 

[Lost4words]

I wish it was one isolated event, but Pope John Paul II as well as Pope Benedict both did it on more than one occasion.

Yes. Many Popes throughout Catholic history have done things that they will have to answer for.

 

[zippy2006]

for this specific thread, ecumenism. he allowed idols to be placed on altars...

Okay, thanks. Out of curiosity: what is the Orthodox definition of the heresy of ecumenism? Perhaps allowance of idol worship in sacred spaces is an example of the heresy, but what is the definition of the heresy?

 

[dzheremi]

Two quick points:

First, ecclesiological hierarchy is a difficult question.

Not as difficult as your church makes it. At the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem, James spoke for the gathered assembly, as he was the local bishop. Only a few decades later, we see in the writings of HH St. Ignatius of Antioch that all must be done gathered around the local bishop, as that is the essence of the "Catholic" (whole, complete -- not "found everywhere geographically", as is the usual RC layperson's definition) Church.

It is a question of truth, and divine providence is not incapable of guiding either ecclesiology.

It is indeed a question of truth and the truth is that the Roman ecclesiology is a departure from its own roots. Read your own Pope Gregory the first sometime, who if I recall correctly wrote in a letter to his Alexandrian (Chalcedonian) counterpart about how the See of Peter is in three places the see of one, reflecting the traditional understanding of Alexandria being 'Petrine', as Antioch also is, rather than the modern Roman stance that to be in 'in communion with Peter' you must be in communion with Rome. And there are many such other wanderings here or there away from what we can find in the records of the Roman bishps/Popes, who were and are long venerated for their Orthodoxy.

Second, these ideas of "slavish obedience" and "incapacity to embrace heresy" are historically and theologically bankrupt. That's just not how the Papacy works. Your more careful criticisms have some validity to them, but they crumble at these extremes.

Tell that to those of who have seen and lived in these 'extremes'. Did you not see Fr. Matt's post which inspired in part my rant? (Sorry, Father.) Do these things just not happen because "that's not how the Papacy works"? Did the Assisi event melt away into nonexistence, and the apologetics behind it too? I don't think so. At least deal with reality, which is where we can all see this stuff.

For example, Francis could be deposed on charge of heresy, and some are interested in such a course of action.

By who, under what circumstances? There are no provisions in the code of canon law that allow for the forcible removal against his own will of the Pope under any circumstances (see here on "Papal renunciation", particularly the bit about how the code specifies that his resignation must be given freely, and needn't be accepted by any particular authority). While you may balk at the source, the direct link to the Vatican website is not working for me right now, so here is a nice summary from 2010 (informed by Catholics at Loyola, Georgetown, and Sacred Heart Major Seminary) at Slate which states it outright:

The Vatican is fending off accusations that Pope Benedict XVI helped cover up sexual child abuse in the Catholic Church when he was archbishop of Munich and Freising in the 1970s and ‘80s. If more evidence turns up against Pope Benedict, can the church fire him?

No. The Code of Canon Law has no provision that allows a pope’s removal from office— for any reason, even poor health or psychological trauma. That’s because, according to church law, there is no higher authority than the pope: He “possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.” A pope may resign, but his resignation must be “made freely,” and he doesn’t have to tender his resignation to any particular authority. (The last pope to resign was Gregory XII, who did so in 1415 to end the battle for the papacy known as the Western schism.)​

In reality that threat will probably not come to fruition and yet it does hem him in and inject a certain amount of conservatism.

Yeah, but my point was why rely on that? Is the Pope like a sleeping cat on your lap -- you can't move unless he moves first? And "(injecting) a certain amount of conservatism" wouldn't even be necessary to note or worry about if you didn't have the ecclesiology that you have to begin with, so I would think that says more about the problems that it creates than I ever could.

It's like how I've heard EO say in response to Roman claims of Papal infallibility that "nobody needs to be infallible if nobody changes anything" (or something like that; this wasn't some kind of aphorism, as far as I know, but one person's comment that has stuck with me since then). By a similar line of logic, nobody needs to "hope for a conservative Pope" or that he'll be "hemmed in" if he's not conservative enough if the ecclesiology of the Church is not so tightly bound up with the individual in the chair to begin with.

I spend exactly zero percent of my day worrying that HH Pope Tawadros II is somehow going to wreck the Church (and I'm not entirely on board with the kinds of ecclesiological messages he's put out, either), because I trust the Holy Synod, as conciliar oversight of the Church is entirely normal, healthy, and indisputably historical.

 

[dzheremi]

Well dude, you are doing far better than me, who posted this in the first place. I mean, while this was a question that didn't come out of absolutely nowhere, no doubt my feelings of anger, sadness, betrayal, and to some extent, grievous loss, aided in pushing me to post this.

Maybe I should take a break from the forum; I oftentimes feel like I'm speaking up in cases when I shouldn't be, or I want immediate, gratifying, logical answers to things that people can't immediately, gratifyingly, and logically provide sometimes.

You and me both, friend. Lord have mercy.

(And I dunno, I thought it was an interesting question. Looks like I might have upset some people, though, so I'm probably gonna bail.)

 

[zippy2006]

Not as difficult as your church makes it. At the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem

Sorry, I'm not entering into a debate on the Papacy. I actually crafted my response to you to carefully avoid that can 'o worms.

Tell that to those of who have seen and lived in these 'extremes'. Did you not see Fr. Matt's post which inspired in part my rant? (Sorry, Father.) Do these things just not happen because "that's not how the Papacy works"? Did the Assisi event melt away into nonexistence, and the apologetics behind it too? I don't think so. At least deal with reality, which is where we can all see this stuff.

Short answer: Fr. Matt was speaking about an uninformed layman.

The problems of papal arbitration are legion, but that doesn't mean that popes are incapable of heresy, or that the Pope is owed slavish obedience.

By who, under what circumstances? There are no provisions in the code of canon law that allow for the forcible removal against his own will of the Pope under any circumstances (see here on "Papal renunciation", particularly the bit about how the code specifies that his resignation must be given freely, and needn't be accepted by any particular authority). While you may balk at the source, the direct link to the Vatican website is not working for me right now, so here is a nice summary from 2010 (informed by Catholics at Loyola, Georgetown, and Sacred Heart Major Seminary) at Slate which states it outright:

The Vatican is fending off accusations that Pope Benedict XVI helped cover up sexual child abuse in the Catholic Church when he was archbishop of Munich and Freising in the 1970s and ‘80s. If more evidence turns up against Pope Benedict, can the church fire him?

No. The Code of Canon Law has no provision that allows a pope’s removal from office— for any reason, even poor health or psychological trauma. That’s because, according to church law, there is no higher authority than the pope: He “possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.” A pope may resign, but his resignation must be “made freely,” and he doesn’t have to tender his resignation to any particular authority. (The last pope to resign was Gregory XII, who did so in 1415 to end the battle for the papacy known as the Western schism.)​

​

Your sources aren't talking about heresy. Without digging up the academic sources, I could just refer you to Edward Feser who has written on this a few times in recent years. Here is a relevant post:

[An] exceptional situation might arise were a pope to become a public heretic, i.e., were he publicly and officially to teach some doctrine clearly opposed to what has been defined as de fide catholicâ… n this case many theologians hold that no formal sentence of deposition would be required, as, by becoming a public heretic, the pope would ipso facto cease to be pope.

(Feser quoting the Catholic Encyclopedia)​

Yeah, but my point was why rely on that? Is the Pope like a sleeping cat on your lap -- you can't move unless he moves first? And "(injecting) a certain amount of conservatism" wouldn't even be necessary to note or worry about if you didn't have the ecclesiology that you have to begin with, so I would think that says more about the problems that it creates than I ever could.

We rely on what we believe to be instituted by Christ. We don't believe in a man-made institution and we don't decide ourselves how to make it. Similar and other problems exist on Conciliarism.

It's like how I've heard EO say in response to Roman claims of Papal infallibility that "nobody needs to be infallible if nobody changes anything"

...Such an interesting EO statement.

By a similar line of logic, nobody needs to "hope for a conservative Pope" or that he'll be "hemmed in" if he's not conservative enough if the ecclesiology of the Church is not so tightly bound up with the individual in the chair to begin with.

Nickles and dimes. Problematic leaders are indicative of problematic cultures, and problematic cultures influence institutions just as much as they influence leaders. A strong central authority can impede or catalyze problematic cultures (e.g. Pope Paul VI). The idea that you're going to solve these issues by way of systemic considerations is fundamentally flawed (and, ironically, strongly modern in character).

I spend exactly zero percent of my day worrying that HH Pope Tawadros II is somehow going to wreck the Church (and I'm not entirely on board with the kinds of ecclesiological messages he's put out, either), because I trust the Holy Synod, as conciliar oversight of the Church is entirely normal, healthy, and indisputably historical.

If and when the synod devolves you will have the same exact problems. 'Synodality' isn't a cure for evil.

 

[TheLostCoin]

While there are many things to like about John Paul II - his peaceful advocacy against Communism, I enjoy his writings on issues of morality, I especially enjoy the importance he placed on the Eastern Rites in the Catholic Church, removing the preconception that they are just seen as those “anti-Latin ethnic tribes who we are tolerating for their salvation”, and he no doubt comes across as genuine in his intention. I admire his fortitude as well near the end of his life. Being in charge of one billion people when you can barely talk, move, or think very clearly must be insanely difficult. I admire him for these things - it’s probably something I wouldn’t have done as well.

But his actions and speeches on Ecumenism (and other things) from when he started his Papacy is just baffling to me from what I know, and I genuinely struggle to wonder where these actions and ideas came from. Was it idolatry of positive press attention and idolatry of the people he saw looking up to him? I mean, before he became Pope, he wrote a pretty scathing critique of Islam; he then during his early Papacy did things like kiss the Quran and asked Saint John the Baptist to protect Islam. His Ecumenism also led to a view that the Mass could be “inculturated,” through that notorious cardinal Marini which he placed to the role of Pontifical liturgical direction, which tried to integrate directly and unchanged Pagan cultural practices and rituals into the Mass on certain occasions like the Canonization Mass of Juan Diego. Yeah, it’s not as though there is nothing Pagan in origin with some liturgical practices, but these were changed to fit into the spirituality and theology of the Church. All Souls Day may have Pagan origins, but we aren’t celebrating a Druid Harvest - we are celebrating “All Souls Day.” If we were to celebrate a Druid Harvest directly I would be baffled.
I don’t think that even Pope Paul VI even invisioned such a radical change when he codified Ecumenism - even he himself still celebrated a pretty respectable form of the Roman Mass, and although he did things like imply Muslims and Jews worshipped the same God, I don’t recall any inter prayer relations with non-Christians or even meeting with such people, which Pope John Paul II went out of his way to do and set up.

I think that most Catholics think that these things are wrong without the Pope, and Catholic media outlets like EWTN and CNA that have promoted the JPII cultus have done a great job at hiding this stuff from mainstream audiences. Had this aspect of JPII been more well known, no doubt would people be more upset at his canonization. In fact, even Benedict XVI, who beatified Pope John Paul II, clearly thought that Pope John Paul II was horribly wrong on these things, kicking Marini to the curve and giving us a more rational liturgical direction (not perfect, but better) and had the 2011 Assisi event to not involve religious rites and made prayer optional. Had this aspect of JPII been not a part of who he was, I could more easily see why many see him as a Saint.

God will be the judge, and I hope that this man will be saved. But his actions on Ecumenism don’t speak to me as a role model on how to cooperate with God’s Grace.