Editor’s
Note:
We’re reproducing the following article from The Remnant
(February 1987) as a means of calling to mind how
traditional Catholics generally reacted to the first
interreligious prayer meeting held at Assisi in 1986. So
scandalous was that event that to this day it is often
cited as the “straw that broke the camel’s back” with
respect to the breakdown in discussions between the
Vatican and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who described it
as “an immeasurable scandal that has no precedent”.
With a 25th anniversary event having been
scheduled by the Vatican to take
place in Assisi in October 2011, we believe it necessary for
Catholics to remember exactly what took place on that
sad occasion, so that, if nothing else,
they may more fervently pray that the anniversary
celebration will not become a repeat performance of what
many conservative Catholics to this day regard as a most
disastrous chapter in the pontificate of the late Pope
John Paul II.
Let us pray for the Church and pray for the Pope. Let us
urge him to use the occasion of the 25th
anniversary of the prayer meeting at Assisi to make
amends, if he can, for the frightful scandal that
occurred in that holy city, particularly the Buddha
statue that was placed atop the sacred tabernacle of a
Catholic church, and let him inform the world and
reassure all Catholics that this was indeed an egregious
blunder, one which will never be permitted again,
whether under the shibboleth of “ecumenism” or of any
other no doubt well-meaning attempt at inter-religious
unity. MJM
The
United Nations
On June 19, 1955, in celebration of the 10th
anniversary of the United Nations, a U.N. Festival of
All Faiths was held at the San Francisco Cow Palace.
This service was an amalgam of all religions, in which
Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Bahais, and all denominations
of Christianity (except two) were represented. The two
exceptions were the Lutherans and the Roman Catholics.
Yet on October 27, 1986, exactly the same sort of
meeting was held in Assisi, Italy, and it was summoned
by the Pope himself. Moreover, the Pope went one better
– he arranged for African animists, who worship the
Great Thumb, to attend! What happened in the Roman
Catholic Church in these 31 years? Is it changing? Or
is it being changed? If so, who is it being
changed by?
When the Pope visited Canada in September, 1984, two
“ecumenical meetings” were set up for him by the Rev.
Brian Clough, Rector of Canada’s major English-language
seminary, St. Augustine’s, Toronto. Fr. Clough included
most of the same churches and religions as the above –
“Buddhists, native peoples, Hindus, Bahais, Sikhs,
Muslims and Zoroastrians”, wrote the Toronto Sun
newspaper of July 12, 1984. Rev. Brian Clough was
hurriedly fired as Rector of St. Augustine’s because of
his “soft” attitude to homosexuality at the seminary
just before the Pope’s arrival, but his “ecumenical
meetings” were allowed to stand.
At the meetings the Pope completely ignored the
non-Christians present and treated the ecumenical
service as if it were purely Christian, i.e., the
traditional meaning assigned to “ecumenism”. Even
Canada’s most famous Rabbi, Dr. W. Gunther Plaut, had to
admit, “That, of course, is a legitimate and accepted
meaning of the word ’ecumenical’,” …(Globe & Mail, Sept
20, 1984) For his action, the Pope was much criticized
by the press – see, for example, the article in the
Globe & Mail of Sept. 18, 1984, captioned
NON-CHRISTIANS FELT LIKE OUTSIDERS AT RECEPTION, RABBI
SAYS. Later, the Pope was to be criticized by
Canada’s senior active Cardinal, Cardinal Carter, who
said that “…with hindsight he wishes the inter-faith
service at St. Paul’s Anglican Church had been better
organized to allow greater representation by
non-Christians – especially Jewish leaders.” (The
Toronto Sunday Sun, Sept. 15, 1985).
Yet all the Pope had done – in 1984 – was to interpret
“ecumenism” as Christian unity. A few months
previously, the World Council of Churches (WCC) had held
its 6th General Assembly in Vancouver. It
defined “ecumenism” as “of the whole inhabited world”
(from the Greek word “oikumenous”, meaning “the whole
inhabited world.” Now, at Assisi, 1986, the Pope
accepted the WCC interpretation of “ecumenism” which he
had refused to accept in Canada in 1984! Again we must
ask: Is the Roman Catholic Church changing? Or is it
being changed, and if so, who is it being
changed by?
The World Council of Churches
Will the Roman Catholic Church now join the WCC? Bear
in mind that the WCC (represented at Assisi) is heading
towards syncretism at great speed. At its 5th
General Assembly, Nairobi, Kenya, November 1975,
representatives from non-Christian religions were
invited and allowed to read short papers to the
Assembly. But in Vancouver, July-August 1984,
non-Christian religions were invited not as mere
observers, but as fully participating members!
Moreover, the WCC is now almost totally Communist.
Time magazine, August 21, 1983, under the caption
“The Curious Politics of Ecumenism,” wrote: “To the
World Council of Churches, the Soviets are sinless.” No
original sin for Communists! Finally, the Vatican is
still considering the WCC Lima Liturgy (BEM. B =Baptism,
Eucharist, Ministry, manufactured at Lima,
Peru, in January 1982 by 120 theologians, mainly
Protestant, but including 12 Catholics also under the
general leadership of Protestant Max Thurian of the
“ecumenical monastery” in Taize, France. The Barque of
Peter is indeed sailing on treacherous seas!
Assisi
The chief organizer was Roger Cardinal Etchegaray, the
President of the far-left Justice and Peace Commission,
but he was aided by the United Nations World Conference
on Religion and Peace (see later). 155 religious leaders
participated from 12 major religions – Christians,
Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, Zoroastrians, African
animists (including snake worshippers), from Togo,
Sikhs, Shinto priests from Japan, Jains, two American
Indians (one being the medicine man of the Crow Indians,
Montana) and the Bahais (who believe that Christ was
just one of nine divine messengers and not the most
important one). The Christians included Robert Runcie,
the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Emilio Castro, the
present Secretary General of the World Council of
Churches, and Patriarchs of the Russian, Bulgarian and
Czechoslovak Orthodox Churches, and the Greek Orthodox
patriarch of Constantinople. The Dalia Lama “God-King´”
exiled from Tibet was also there. Of him the N.Y
Times of Oct. 28, 1986, wrote:
The day produced some extraordinary cultural
encounters. For example, the Buddhists, led by the
Dalai Lama, quickly converted the altar of the Church of
San Pietro by placing a small statue of the Buddha atop
the tabernacle and setting prayer scrolls and incense
burners around it.
The Buddhists then turned their backs on the Blessed
Sacrament left in a side chapel.
While the meeting was held, ostensibly “to pray for
peace”, why would God listen to prayers from those who
profess other gods? Pope John Paul II may not have
broken the First Commandment by worshipping strange gods
himself, but he convened the Assisi meeting at which
many others were present amid world-wide and almost
totally favourable publicity from the media. And some
of the gods were indeed “strange” – “an immeasurable
scandal that has no precedent” was how Archbishop
Lefebvre put it. St. Paul said, “Be ye not unequally
yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship
hath righteousness with unrighteousness, and what
communion hath light with darkness? And what concord
hath Christ with Belial?”
Vatican II Responsible
We quote from the Canadian Catholic Register,
January 10, 1987, quoting NC News Service, “The unity
shown by world religious leaders who prayed for peace in
Assisi, Italy, last October (1986) was “visible
illustration” of the Second Vatican Council’s call for
ecumenism and interreligious dialogue, Pope John Paul II
said.” This speech was laced with quotations from the
documents of Vatican II, which he said showed how “such
a great event sprang from the teaching of the council.”
Here we have the source of all this – Vatican II – and
there can be no question of “misrepresentation” since
the Pope himself has interpreted it. Our Lord did not
call for “ecumenism and interreligious dialogue.” Our
Lord said: “Go ye therefore and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”
St. Paul Defines the Real War
The Assisi meeting was held “to pray for peace.” While
there are certainly many nasty wars, all
Soviet-inspired, now raging in the world, e.g.,
Afghanistan, let us see how St. Paul himself defined
why: “We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but
against principalities, against powers, against the
rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual
wickedness in high places.” (Ephesians, 6:12)
Now with the best will in the world we have to admit
that Muslims, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Bahais, African
animists, and these other religions do not accept that
Christ is God. Since Christ IS God, these religions –
with the best will in the world – must be considered as
anti-Christians and therefore anti-God.
How, then, would their prayers help in the real war,
i.e., the war as defined by St. Paul, of which the wars
on earth are merely the effect and not the
cause? Jesus said, “How can Satan cast out Satan?”
(Mark, 2:23) Remember “wars are a punishment for sin,”
Our Lady said at Fatima. And who should be making us sin
and thus causing the wars now plaguing our tormented and
threatened world: “The rulers of the darkness of this
world.” The Pope in his undoubtedly sincere desire for
peace should rather listen to Our Divine Lord Himself,
who said, “If I cast out devils by the Spirit of God,
then the kingdom of God is come unto you.” (Matt.
12a;28)
Syncretism Denied
“What will take place at Assisi will certainly not be
religious syncretism,” said Pope John Paul II on October
22, 1986. According to the Pope, the difference lay in
the fact that they had not “come to pray together” but
“to come together to pray.” The well –known Religion
Commentator for the powerful Toronto Star newspaper, Tom
Harper, wrote after Assisi: “There was too much fear
that the various groups might be seen or thought of as
actually praying together, thus suggesting they viewed
each other as equals in truth. This is why Pope John
Paul II kept insisting they had not come to ‘pray
together’ but had come together to pray. But who
cares?” (Toronto Star, Nov. 9, 1986) Yes, there’s
the rub - WHO CARES? Who will even notice these
essentially ‘fine print’ reservations, in effect a
question of mere semantics? It would seem as if some
malignant hand behind the Pope is determined to stampede
Catholics into Syncretism, while technically not
committing the Pope to it.
It could hardly be otherwise since Pope Paul VI
condemned syncretism in his encyclical Evangelii
Nuntiandi, Dec. 8, 1975. BUT GOD IS NOT MOCKED.
The vast bulk of Catholics may now rush off into
syncretism, or exotic religions such as the GREAT THUMB,
the Bahais, various Hindu cults, Zoroastrians, etc., or
in disgust to Fundamentalism. Remember, the well-known
American Fundamentalist leader, Dr. Carl McIntyre called
Assisi “the greatest single abomination in church
history” – the same sentiments as expressed by
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who called it “the supreme
imposture, the culminating insult of Our Lord” and also
“in my view, this is a diabolical act.”
Syncretism Defined
“The astonishing variety of the invited group also
raised suspicions among some Christians that Assisi
represented a heretical step towards syncretism, the
amalgamation of various conflicting religions.” (Time,
Nov. 10, 1986), which explains why the Pope had
previously said, “What will take place at Assisi will
certainly not be religious syncretism”. Let us here
digress a moment to see what syncretism is.
The best definition, ironically enough, was given by the
first Secretary General of the World Council of Churches
(1948-1966). Dr. W. A. Visser’t Hooft in his excellent
book, NO OTHER NAME: The Choice between syncretism and
Christian Universalism (The Westminster Press
Philadelphia, 1963, and also by the SCM Press Ltd.
London, in 1963. On page 11 Dr. Hooft wrote:
The word syncretism should be reserved for another type
of religious attitude, which deserves to have its own
name because it is such an important, persistent and
widespread religious phenomenon. This is the view which
holds that there is no unique revelation in history,
that there are many different ways to reach the divine
reality, that all formulations of religious truth or
experience are by their very nature inadequate
expressions of that truth and that it is necessary to
harmonize as much as possible all religious ideas and
experiences so as to create one universal religion for
mankind.
On page 10, Dr. Hooft had written:
Many of the best among us are deeply anxious about the
inability of the human family, now forced for better or
worse to live in close contact, to find a common ethos,
a common standard for human relations. It is realized
that such an ethos must be rooted in common convictions
about the ultimate issues of life. Does it not follow
that we must somehow force the religious leaders to come
to agreement and to develop one universal
world-religion? Is therefore syncretism in some form
not inevitable?
It is precisely this plausible, rationally almost
self-evident character of the syncretistic answer to the
needs of the world that makes it a more dangerous
challenge to the Christian Church than full-fledged
atheism is ever likely to be.
Dr. Hooft’s book is now unfortunately out of print. In
the absence of a reprint (unlikely because Dr. Hooft
died in December, 1985), the reader is referred to A
Study in Syncretism (The Background and Apparatus of the
Emerging One World Church) by the present writer and
obtainable from the Canadian Intelligence Publications
(Box 130, Flesherton, Ont, NOC 1EO,) The United Nations
has an official syncretic body called the World
Conference On Religion and Peace (WCRP) and its office
is Suite 777 (sic) at the United Nations Plaza. (Some
feel Suite 666 would be appropriate.)
It is unfortunate that the Pope in recent months,
including at Assisi, called repeatedly for the closest
possible collaboration with the United Nations, a
godless and Masonic organization now fast coming under
total Soviet control – a Marxist world government.
Assisi was in fact held to “mark the U.N. International
Year of Peace”. The WCRP has had four meetings so far:
at Kyoto, Japan, in 1970; at Louvain, Belgium in 1974;
in Princeton, U.S.A. in 1979; and lastly at Nairobe,
Kenya, in August, 1984, the current media darling,
Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a supposed Anglican, was
elected as President of the WCRP. The present Secretary
General of the WCRP is Dr. John B. Taylor, formerly
Director of the World Council of Churches Sub-Unit for
Dialogue with People of Living Faiths and Ideologies
(the DFI)), who has said that “the world conference (on
religion and Peace) has supported the Assisi meeting
from the beginning and has been involved in the
planning stages.” (The Toronto Star, October, 18th,
1986). Dr. Taylor was also quoted as saying, “The
patronage of such people as the Pope and the Archbishop
of Canterbury is going to encourage some of those who
are perhaps a little bit hesitant or suspicious to get
together at the local level”. (Star, October, 18th,
1986) Exactly what we had feared.
The Pope’s Travels Encourage Syncretism
The basic principle behind syncretism is that all
religions are of equal validity. While the Pope does
not actually say this, his praise and uncritical
deference towards heathen, man-made religions and to
Judaism will certainly convey to many that basic
principle, i.e. his incessant travels must serve to
reinforce the syncretism of Assisi. Consider: he
smoked sweet grass with Canadian Indians on his Canadian
tour, 1984. In 1984 he visited a Buddhist Temple in
Thailand. In 1985 he apologized to Moslems in his
Morocco visit and also heaped great praise on them.
That same year he visited the sacred forest near Lohomay,
Togo, in the company of Aseno or Great Priest of the
Sacred Forest.
During his Togo visit the Pope met with
snake-worshippers who were later to participate at
Assisi. In 1986 he visited the main Rome Synagogue on
terms and seating posture of absolute equality with the
old and superseded Covenant of Judaism. In India, 1986,
John Paul II allowed the ‘tilak’, a sandal wood paste
mark, to be applied to his forehead by a Hindu
“Priestess”. Everywhere he went in India, he quoted
from the Hindu scriptures and actually partook in pagan
rites. He praised the Hindu syncretist Gandhi to the
skies. Gandhi said “I am a Christian and a Hindu and a
Moslem and a Jew” and the Bahais acted as religious
advisers to the movie on Gandhi. Moreover he recited
the so-called “peace prayer”, the “asothama satgamaya”
whose introduction by Cardinal Hume in England the great
Hamish Fraser tried so hard to prevent. What chance did
Hamish have when the pope himself used that prayer? In
Suva, Fiji, November, 1986, the Pope drank “kava” a
drink once condemned as a tool of devil worship. The
Pope downed it in one swallow.
Hans Kung Approves
Hans Kung, who was deprived of his status as a Catholic
theologian in 1979, is a strong supporter of the Assisi
initiative. We quote from an NC report, Catholic
Register (Toronto), April 19th, 1986:
Fr. Hans Kung, the Swiss-born professor of theology who
has accused Pope John Paul II of having a pre-Vatican II
mentality, has praised the Pope for his ongoing contacts
with Christian and non-Christian religious leaders. “In
this the Pope is certainly within the policy of
Vatican II”, Fr. Kung said in an interview… “Many
consider me as if I were an opponent of this Pope in
everything.” “This is false,” said Fr. Kung. “I am
happy to learn that the Pope speaks in favor of
dialogues with other religions and that he commits
himself to favoring these in his voyages”, he
added. Regarding dialogue with non-Christian religions,
it is necessary “to avoid every impression that behind
these new initiatives is hidden the old spirit of Roman
imperialism”, he said. (In other words – no converts!)…
“I hope that the event of Assisi will be a meeting of
equal dignity and not a manifestation of papal
triumphalism,” he said… “Pope John Paul II, in calling
for unified prayer by men of all faiths, shows he
believes there is a common foundation for all
religions”, he said.
We fear Hans Kung had in mind the Golden Rule – for
significance see later. It will be remembered too that
Hans Kung, while Visiting Professor at the University of
Toronto, echoed the familiar stench of syncretism when
he wrote, “Let them (the Catholic Bishops) work for the
final understanding among Christian Churches, for an
unprejudiced dialogue with Jews, Moslems, and other
religions.” (The globe and Mail, October 5, 1985)
The Golden Rule
Thanking the delegates for traveling long distances and
making sacrifices to attend Assisi, the Pope said the
“golden rule” taught by Christ, ”Treat others as you
would like them to treat you”, is a foundation for peace
in all religions. (Our Sunday Visitor, November 16,
1986). It is true that the Golden Rule is to be found
in all religions. There is also some evidence that the
United Nations will proclaim the Golden Rule as the
spiritual basis of its intended syncretist one world
religion to be called World or Universal Brotherhood.
In which case the Soviet Union in particular and
Communism in general having conquered the world by
treachery, trickery, especially legalistic trickery, and
outright aggression, would be able to quote the Golden
Rule to protect their ill-gotten gains. Just like the
Robber turned Religious who quotes the 7th
Commandment (Thou shalt not steal) to protect the swag
he has already stolen!
Now the Golden Rule is an example of religious
indifference par excellence. Do you really want
religious indifferentism as the spiritual basis of the
emerging one world state? Remember that with the Golden
Rule you don’t necessarily get Christ at all: you could
get Krishna, Zoroaster, Confucius, or Hillel, etc.
Jews usually attribute the Golden Rule to Hillel,
although it occurs in Leviticus (19:18) Hillel was
President of the Sanhedrin and died about A.D. 10. He is
greatly honoured today by the B’Nai B’Rith. Bishop
Fulton Sheen in his Life of Christ, McGraw-Hill
Book Co. 1985, wrote that Hillel “may have been present
in the Temple to join the discussion of the divine
child”. We also find in A Catholic Dictionary, 1949, it
was said, “By Jewish and modernist writers that Hillel
has been put forward as a rival to Christ…”
Nearly 80 years ago, the Catholic Encyclopedia,
published in New York, 1910, had to affirm that Hillel
“for personal character and spiritual insight and
permanent influence cannot in any way compare with, much
less equal or surpass, as some have affirmed of late,
Christ, the Light and Saviour of the World”.
Christ (not the Golden Rule!) must be the spiritual
basis of future world order. For with Christ you
automatically have the Golden Rule but not
vise-versa. Pope Pius XII put the only solution for our
tormented world as follows:
A call to revival, and cry for insurrection – a
Christian insurrection – is heard throughout the world.
The world will have to be rebuilt in Jesus.
St Francis of Assisi
Let’s see how St. Francis himself approached the same
problem in the 6th Crusade in 1219. Oh yes,
St. Francis wanted peace and he was “ecumenical” too!
After great difficulties and hazards, the Saint
approached the Soldan (i.e. Sultan). The following
quotation is from Butler’s Lives of the Saints:
In the meantime St. Francis, burning with zeal for the
conversion of the Sacracens, desired to pass to their
camp, fearing no dangers for Christ. He was seized by
the scouts of the infidels, to whom he cried out, “I am
a Christian; conduct me to your master.” Being brought
before the soldan, and asked by him his errand, he said
with wonderful intrepidity and fervour, “I am sent, not
by men, but the most high God, to show you and your
people the way of salvation, by announcing to you the
truth of the gospel.” The soldan appeared to be moved,
and invited him to stay with him. The man of God
replied, “if you and your people will listen to the word
of God, I will stay with you. If yet you waver between
Christ and Mahomet, cause a great fire to be kindled,
and I will go into it with your Imams (or priests) that
you may see which is the true faith.” The soldan
answered that he did not believe any of their priests
would be willing to go into the fire, or to suffer
torments for their religion, and that he could not
accept his condition for fear of sedition.
Assisi Assessment
Archbishop Lefebvre has said of Assisi, “In my view,
this is a diabolical act” and “the supreme imposture,
the culminating insult to Our Lord”. We feel that
Assisi will be repeated every year because, in his
annual Christmas message, 1986, the Pope said, “The
event at Assisi can be considered as a visible
illustration, a lesson of facts, a catechism
intelligible to all, of what the ecumenical commitment
and the commitment of inter-religious dialogue
presupposes and signifies”. (“A Model for Cooperation”,
was the heading (Globe and Mail, Toronto, December 24,
1986)…
Pope John Paul II is our Pope and we must pray
for him as never before. We must invoke the Blessed
Virgin Mary, the Lily of Israel, constantly, and under
her titles “Conqueror of Heretics”, “Queen of Victories”
and “Queen of Peace”… |