Friday, January 23, 2015

the interreligious experience of fraternity is a grace





Secondly, yesterday at Madhu I saw something which I would never have expected: not everyone there was Catholic, not even the majority! There were Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, and each one came to pray; they go and they say they receive graces there. There is in the people – and the people are never wrong – they sense that there is something there that unites them. And if they are so naturally united in going together to pray at that shrine – which is Christian but not only Christian, because all want [to go there], then why shouldn’t I go to a Buddhist temple to greet them? What happened yesterday at Madhu is very important. It helps us to understand the meaning of the interreligious experience in Sri Lanka: there is respect for one another. There are small fundamentalist groups, but these are not with the people: they are ideological elites, but they are not with the people.
Now, as for their going to hell! Even the Protestants… when I was a child, some seventy years ago, all Protestants were going to hell, all of them. That’s what we were told. And I remember my first experience of ecumenism. I told it a little while ago to the leaders of the Salvation Army. I was four or five years old, but I can still remember it clearly. I was walking down the street with my grandmother, she was holding my hand. On the other sidewalk there were two ladies from the Salvation Army, with those hats with the bow they used to wear. And I asked my grandmother: “Grandma, are they nuns?” And she said to me: “No, they are Protestants, but they are good people”. This was the first time that I had ever heard someone say something good about a person of another religion, about a Protestant. At that time, in catechesis, they told us that everyone was going to hell! But I believe that the Church has become much more respectful – as I said during the interreligious meeting in Colombo – and appreciative. When we read what the Second Vatican Council said about the values to be found in other religions, the Church has grown greatly in this regard. And yes, there are dark periods in the history of the Church, we must admit, without being ashamed, because we too are on a path of constant conversion: always moving from sin to grace. And this interreligious experience of fraternity, each always respecting the other, is a grace. I do not know if there is something I have forgotten. Is that all? Vielen Danke

Francis demonstrating what it is to be in the state of grace

13 comments:

  1. Dom Lefebvre, the so called 'traditional bishop' also taught that protestants, muslims , buddhists and pagans could be saved by the 'desire to do God's will' .The FSSPX, CMRI and SSPV are all equally heretical. I think it is funny that most protestant sects still believe thst you need to be baptised to be saved and that Buddhists and Muslims are idolators but the so-called traditional Catholic sects don't.
    My own opinion is that Dom Lefebvre was an agent for confusion. That he made a huge show of defending the traditional Mass so that people wouldn't realise that he was destroying the faith. It is the dogmas of the faith that are essential for salvation not the Mass.
    The japanese catholics didn't have access to priests, the Mass or sacraments (except baptism for 200 years but they still kept the faith. The Irish Catholics were deprived of priests , the Mass and sacraments for years during the protestant persecutions but did not lose the faith. The catholic church was nearly destroyed during the Arian heresy but was saved by saint Athanasius who clung to the dogmas of the faith and we have his infallible creed as proof that the doctrine of EENS was ALWAYS the doctrine of the church.
    I am a pre-Vatican II catholic and I can state that all catholics, except those catequised by the heretical Baltimore Catechism, believed in EENS. I was catechised by the Penny Catechism and I even remember the catechism class when my teacher, Mr. Blackmore (RIP) explained the doctrine to us, and we kids looked at each other as the implications of the doctrine sunk in.
    I would also like to see state that Catholics were NEVER hypocritical, pharisaical puritans like these so called traditional Catholics like to make out and we did not wear weird clothes. Writers and poets like Waugh, Chesterton and the Sitwells converted to
    the Catholic Church, we were not a bunch of weirdos.
    Finally, Catholics were not obsessed with the Apocalypse and the coming chastisement. Apocalyptic obsessions were the preserve of American puritans and a consequence of their gnostic puritanism which sees the material world as evil and is contrary to the Dogma of the Catholic faith that God created a good world which testifies to his goodness and perfection.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, hunt, but you, as do all other Feeneyites, ignore crucial distinctions and call Thomists heretics; you really follow your own Magisterium! BOD isn't a heresy at all, properly understood.

      Delete
    2. Another pompous post Vatican II Catholic trying to tell me a pre- Vatican II Catholic what Catholics believed before Vatican II. I am not a Feeneyite , I was taught to believe in and believe THE DOGMAS of the Catholic faith that to be saved you need to be baptised with water, have explicit faith in all the dogmas of the faith and that you need to be a member of the Catholic Church. None of the dogmas of the faith mention salvation by blood, desire and invincible ignorance. I advise all post Vatican II Catholics to get hold of a copy of the dogmas of the faith because that is what you are suppose to believe if you want to be saved.
      By your definition anon. Our Lord Jesus Christ was a Feeneyite because he specifically stated that you needed to be baptised by water and the spirit to be saved. St. Thomas wasn't alive for the first 1500 years of thr Church , so all Catholics before then were heretics were they?
      You arrogantly expect me to believe the contradictory speculations of a man over the explicit and clear teachings of Our Lord Jesus Christ , God incarnate?
      Our Lord did not teach salvation by BOD or BOB and it is evident from St. Paul's episltle to the Galations that the dogmas of the Church were already defined and St. Paul anathametized anyone that tried to preach a gospel that was different from that already preached.
      The infallible papal bull Cantate Domino of 1492 specifically condemns any belief in BoB or BoD.
      St. Thomas himself, after he received the bump on the head, declared that
      the 'Summa ' was just 'straw' and St. Bonaventure , his friend , decared that St.Thomas was the father of all heresies.
      St. Thomas himself wrote that anyone who taught doctrines of salvation different from those taught by Our Lord wad just as much a heretic as a pagan, muslim or jew.
      Catholics didn't need to study philosophy to know their faith, all we had to believe in were our catechisms and if you look up the Penny Catechism which was used to catechise me , you will not find any mention of salvation by desire, blood or invincible ignorance.
      I agree with the opinion of St.John Chryostom that philosophies are 'deleriums of the Greeks ' and that the doctrines of Our Lord Jesus Christ superceded them. For me philosophical speculations are vain, idle and futile because much of what is divine is and will remain a mystery to us.
      We have the dogmas of the faith and they contain all the information we need for our salvation.

      Catholics never had to study philosophy to know their faith

      Delete
    3. "I was taught to believe in and believe THE DOGMAS of the Catholic faith that to be saved you need to be baptised with water, have explicit faith in all the dogmas of the faith and that you need to be a member of the Catholic Church"

      perhaps you should read the Catechism of the Council of Trent in the original Latin as published by the Council of Trent

      Delete
    4. The catechism of the Council of Trent is not an infallible document. It refersto justification and not salvation which are very different things. The Council of Trent itself anathematised any attempt to make a metaphor of Our Lord's teaching about baptism with water.
      The Penny Catechism which was used to catechise English Catholics since the times of the recusants does not mention salvation by desire, blood or invincible ignorance. Are you implying that for four hundred years English Catholics were catequised incorrectly?
      The only catechism before Vatican II that taught BoD was the Baltimore Catechism which was published in 1864 , I think and was a sop to the protestants who did not accept Catholic teaching regarding salvation.
      Therefore for nearly 2000 years EENS was the official doctrine of the Church.
      The 1949 letter which gave an authoritive stamp of approval to the doctrines of BoD and the evolution of the dogmas was heretical and was the beginning of the process that lead to the ecumenism of Vatican II which you justly condemn.
      I am sorry if I'm being inconvenient with my insistence with this topic but for me it is the principal dogma and I find it very difficult to understand why a doctrine that was accepted by all Catholics 55 years ago encounters so much resistance among Catholics nowadays. If the dogmas of salvation through water baptism and explicit faith, which were taught by Our Lord , Jesus Christ are untrue then nothing is true and there is no point in being a Catholic.
      Before Vatican II, there were Catholic missionaries all over the world because in those days priests and nuns believed in the doctrine of EESN and took the commandment of Our Lord to baptise and preach the gospel seriously. With the acceptance of salvation by baptism of desire and invincible ignorance , all these missionary activities virtually ceased or are now more social work.
      Every classroom in my primary school had a chart with a staircase with thirty steps leading up to the Gates of Heaven. Each child was given a little paper cut -out doll which represented a child from Africa, India, China, the South Seas etc. In those politically incorrect days we called them the 'black babies'. Each time a child contributed a penny towards the missions, the little doll was moved up a step until after 30 pennies and we received a certificate stating that we had contributed that amount to the missions and we were able to choose a baptismal name for the child.
      I am writing all this to demonstrate the importance and significance of the doctrine of EENS before VaticanII and the appalling number of souls that were lost to God when the doctrine was abandoned and priests and religious no longer were expected to obey the commandment of Our Lord Jesus Christ to go to all nations and baptise and preach the gospel.



      Delete
  2. This is disgusting! What point is Bergoglio trying to make? Using the Papacy as a photo op? The only justification for meeting Muslims, Buddhists etc. would be to proselytize or convert them to Catholicism, obviously apostate Francis does not believe religions outside the Catholic should convert to Catholicism. By showing respect to a false religion ipso facto Bergoglio becomes a heretic. He creates scandal for the Catholic Church, for the Catholic faithful, betrays God and the children entrusted to him by God. Congratulations Jorge you are the proud owner of a millstone about your neck.

    The ecumenism of the false sect of Vatican II has given us the idol of pluralism which has replaced the absolute Divine truth as handed down from Jesus Christ through the Apostles. What Bergoglio fails or refuses to believe is... OUR LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST ALONE IS THE WAY, THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE. APART FROM JESUS CHRIST THERE IS NO TRUTH, THERE IS NO LIFE. NOT BUDDA!!!!!!

    The Ecumenist Bergoglio employs to reshape and reinvent the church. The Christian / Catholic Church founded on the Apostles is one, holy, catholic and
    apostolic. The church is 'one' because the church has only one faith, order and worship received directly from Jesus Christ. This one faith, order and worship makes the church 'holy' because Jesus, who is God, is the single source of this faith, order and worship. The church is 'catholic' because the faith, order and worship of the church has universal application for all times and places and is "cut from the whole" as delivered by Jesus Christ to the Apostles. The church is Apostolic because the faith, order and worship is the same as that received by and
    handed down from the Apostles under the governance and guidance of the Holy Ghost.

    Ecumenism violates that concept and thus is heretical and an abomination before the Lord God and a grave sin. The tyranny of Ecumenism would seek to redefine the 'church' and remove the Apostolic Mandate to retain the faith, order and worship as received from Christ and taught by the Apostles and the early church catholic.
    Sincerely,
    --Heather

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's all in the look on his face - it reveals everything we need to know about this man as a "pope".

    ReplyDelete
  4. I apologise for being shirty with anon. but I can't tell you the number of times I've been attacked by so-called traditional Catholics when I've tried to defend the dogmas of the faith regarding baptism, faith and salvation.
    Notice how they use the Marxist Saul Alinksky tactic of calling anyone who dares to defend the traditional teaching of the Church a " Feeneyite", just like the marxists use the word "denier" in other circumstances, in an attempt to isolate you and put an end to further discussion.
    If I am a Feeneyite, then Our Lord, Saint Anathasius, all the Popes who condemned religious indifferentism and all the brave martyrs and saints who died in defence of the Catholic faith were "Feeneyites".
    If you think about it, salvation by invincible ignorance or baptism of desire negates the Church's doctrine regarding original sin, and the purpose of the sacrament of baptism with water, which is to confer the merits of Christ's sacrifice on the individual soul and make him a new creature acceptable to God. If people can go to heaven in a state of original sin then the Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ becomes rather pointless, and undermines the unique distinction of Our Lady's Immaculate Conception.
    I have had so many discussions with members of the FSSPX about baptism, quoting the New Testament, papal encyclicals and bulls, but to no avail. Their attitude to Dom. Lefebvre verges on idolatry and they prefer to imply that Our Lord, the Apostles, Saint Athanasius and all the Popes lied, than admit than Dom.Lefbvre taught heresy.
    I thank God that I was catequised before Vatican II because it must be very confusing for Catholics born after Vatican II.
    If I may recommend two books which can be found for free on the internet which may help to clarify the issues;_"Liberalism is a Sin" by Dom Felix Sarda and Salvany and "The Church of the Parables and Spouse of the Suffering Saviour " by Josef Pranchensky. The latter book was written to combat the belief that Protestants could be saved; the idea that so-called traditional Catholics would teach that muslims, buddhists and even pagans could be saved without baptism was inconceivable at the time.

    ReplyDelete
  5. no one enters heaven without being baptized//this is for a start !!! As for protestants who do not believe in the sacraments, it doesn't mean they all go to heaven as bergoglio said he learned wha he was little. this is a false teaching, as God doesn't not send people to hell just like that' most protestants might have to spend longer and harsher time in purgatory, that's all !1 as for pagans, depending on what they have done in life, depending on their hrarts, either go to limbo or to hell !!! It's the person in the end who choses to go to hell, since his soul is so dark with sin, that they cannot stand God's light. This is pure catholic theology !! Bergoglio is not a catholic, but a gnostic ecclesiastical freemason; his 'god' are the energies of the universe, which hard core gnostics believe to be lucifer !!!

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think the debate here in the comments between hunt and others on Baptism demonstrates how after so many decades now without a true pope in Rome, Catholics en masse have all tried to supply for the vacuum left by that emptiness, and are doing, as Gerry Matatics likes to correctly quote from Judges, that which seems right to themselves. This is surely why Our Lord said that if He did not shorten this time even the elect would not be saved.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I don't know if my other comment got through but I want to state quite clearly that I am not doing "that which seems right to myself" I am not a protestant!
    I, following the example of Saint Athanasius, am clinging to the dogmas of the faith which are the Divine Spirtual Truths, eternal and objective.
    http://jloughnan.tripod.com/dogma.htm
    As we are such an evil generation that God has been unable to find one bishop to defend the faith, then it is up to each and everyone of us as catholics, to ascertain the true faith and defend it.
    All the writings of the Church fathers, deliberations of the Councils, papal bulls, catechisms, and encyclicals are on the internet. The truth is there if we are willng to find it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Another question for you so-called traditional Catholic. How can you criticise protestants for not taking Our Lord's commandment to eat His Body literally when you don't take his teachings about baptism, faith and salvation literally?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ironically the Pope's outburst proves that the doctrine of EENS before Vatican II

    ReplyDelete