Grave Concerns about Pope Francis' Abu Dhabi Doc.

[Michael Wilson]

Interesting article by Mr. Joseph Siefert:

Grave Concerns About Pope Francis' Abu Dhabi Document - By Professor Josef Seifert
There are grave concerns among Catholics about the Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together which Pope Francis and the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, Ahmad Al-Tayyeb, signed on February 4, 2019 in Abu Dhabi.

Nobody doubts that many truths about God and the natural moral law, and many semina verbi have been known by the pagans and are contained in many religions (except in the directly satanic ones), such as the "golden rule".

Nobody believes that God cannot give the grace of eternal salvation outside the realm of the visible Church, its sacraments and conscious Christian faith. No one fails to see the many good and beautiful truths Pope Francis and the Imam confirm in the document.

However, to claim that "the pluralism and the diversity of religions" (colour, sex, race and language) are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings" goes far, far beyond all this.

How can God will religions that deny Christ's divinity and resurrection? How is this compatible with logic? Can God want that men hold contradictorily opposed beliefs about Jesus Christ or about God or about any other thing?

How can God from creation on have willed that men would fall into sin, worship false gods, become victims of errors and superstitions of all sorts, that they adhere to subtly atheist or pantheist religions such as Buddhism, or to religions cursed by the Old Testament and attributed to demons and demon-worship?

How can God, who wants his disciples to go out and preach to the whole world and baptize them, have willed any Christian heresy, let alone religions that deny the faith of which Jesus says to Nicodemus that he who believes in Him will be saved and he who does not, will be damned (John 3,18)? If we read the Old and the New Testament, or look at the universal teachings of the Church on the divine command, given by Christ himself, to preach the Gospel to all nations, on the necessity of baptism and faith for salvation, etc., the opposite is clearly the case.

How can it then be true that God in His wisdom willed from creation on that many people do not believe in their only Redeemer?

I do not see any artful mental acrobatics capable of denying that this statement not only contains all heresies but also alleges a divine will that a large majority of mankind espouse all kinds of false and non-Christian religious creeds.

Besides, by attributing to God the will that there be religions contradicting His Divine Revelation, instead of attributing to him the will that all nations shall come to believe in the one true God and His Son and our Redeemer, God is turned into a relativist who does not know that there is only one truth and that its opposite cannot be true for different nations, or who does not care whether men believe in truth or falsity. This phrase claims that God wills religious errors.

By signing the statement that God wills a plurality of religions, the Pope defied both fides and ratio and rejected Christianity which is inseparable from the belief in Jesus Christ, who is the unus Dominus. (I assume that also the highest Islamic authorities will expel this Imam because the Islam makes an absolute claim to truth as well).

In fact, if God really "wills all religions," then he must hate the Catholic Church most of all because of its claim to be the one, Catholic, and apostolic Church and because it rejects in its dogmas and perennial magisterial teachings any relativization of the Christian religion which would turn Christianity into one of many contradictory religions.

In sum: Any Catholic should pray that the Pope convert and reject this horrible sentence in the Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together signed by him and the Great Imam Ahmad Al-Tayyeb, because it undermines all true and beautiful things this document says on brotherhood.

It is neither impossible nor shameful for a Pope to retract errors that he has committed in his non-infallible teachings. The first Pope, instituted by Jesus Christ himself, Peter, did so upon the reprimand of St. Paul during the first Apostolic Council of the Church. Pope John XXII revoked on this deathbed a heresy about separated souls that he had committed in a previous document and that was a second time condemned as heresy by his successor.

Therefore, we have all good reason to hope that Pope Francis will revoke a sentence that constitutes a total break with logic as well as with Biblical and Church teaching.

If he does not do this, I am afraid that Canon Law may apply according to which a Pope automatically loses his Petrine office when professing heresy, especially when he professes the sum-total of all heresies.

I would have to disagree with Mr. Siefert on the part about having "good reason to hope that Pope Francis will revoke a sentence, etc. etc."  From the Pope's past record, he has not corrected any of his past heretical/outrageous statements; he is no "dummy" or a "theological Mr. Magoo", accidentally stumbling from one error to another hapless and clueless; he knows what he is doing and conscious of what he is saying.

[bigbadtrad]

I would have to disagree with Mr. Siefert on the part about having "good reason to hope that Pope Francis will revoke a sentence, etc. etc."  From the Pope's past record, he has not corrected any of his past heretical/outrageous statements; he is no "dummy" or a "theological Mr. Magoo", accidentally stumbling from one error to another hapless and clueless; he knows what he is doing and conscious of what he is saying.

I disagree strongly, Mr. Magoo would make a far greater pontiff than this one.

[Heinrich]

What does this matter to sedevacantists? Not to be snarquey, just asking.

[Michael Wilson]

What does this matter to sedevacantists? Not to be snarquey, just asking.

It matters because we sedevacantists are (to 99.999999% of the population at least) just a bunch of loony outliers screaming "The King has no clothes! The King has no clothes!"; for the remainder Pope Francis is the Pope, and what he says and does, is logically what the Catholic Church stands for; so I at least try to post some of the above, to try to wake up some people to the possibility that something might be rotten in Denmark (or Rome in this case).

[Michael Wilson]

"It is impious to say, 'I respect every religion.' This is as much as to say: I respect the devil as much as God, vice as much as virtue, falsehood as much as truth, dishonesty as much as honesty, Hell as much as Heaven."
—Fr. Michael Müller, The Church and Her Enemies (source here)

[Kreuzritter]

Nobody believes that God cannot give the grace of eternal salvation outside the realm of ... conscious Christian faith

I do.

[mikemac]

I would have to disagree with Mr. Siefert on the part about having "good reason to hope that Pope Francis will revoke a sentence, etc. etc."  From the Pope's past record, he has not corrected any of his past heretical/outrageous statements; he is no "dummy" or a "theological Mr. Magoo", accidentally stumbling from one error to another hapless and clueless; he knows what he is doing and conscious of what he is saying.

I disagree strongly, Mr. Magoo would make a far greater pontiff than this one.

Pope Quincy

[King Wenceslas]

No one fails to see the many good and beautiful truths Pope Francis and the Imam confirm in the document.

Yes and the head of the Anglican church says many good things all the time. But he will still go to hell because he supports sodomy. Same as for the Iman because he openly denies Christ. And Francis because he supports adultery and denies the existence of hell for unrepentant sinners.

[Miriam_M]

What does this matter to sedevacantists? Not to be snarquey, just asking.

It matters because we sedevacantists are (to 99.999999% of the population at least) just a bunch of loony outliers screaming "The King has no clothes! The King has no clothes!"; for the remainder Pope Francis is the Pope, and what he says and does, is logically what the Catholic Church stands for; so I at least try to post some of the above, to try to wake up some people to the possibility that something might be rotten in Denmark (or Rome in this case).

But that, kindly, is your misunderstanding, Michael.  Not to declare oneself a sede is not equivalent to having no doubts about:
(1) Francis' Catholicity
(2) Francis' legitimacy as Pope
(3) Francis' mental health and competency to serve

It's just that:
(1) we do not necessarily assume that we are competent or qualified to determine the above, and
(2) "knowing" any of the above does nothing, positively or negatively, to affect our own obligations as traditional Catholics.

It is at the least, extremely troubling that PF says what he says, does what he does, no matter how educated he is and how deliberate his actions.  (Although I continue to maintain that his generation was remarkably badly formed, if one can even use the word "formed," since the spirituality of the formation was often so missing, requiring less of seminarians than in previous eras.)  But managing a troubling distraction in a leader does not reduce the time needed to sanctify ourselves.  I don't have time to do both: figure him out and save my soul.  Maybe I'm just slow. 

Let me put it another way:  I am right now at work dealing with a boss who doesn't know what he's doing.  Should I tell him that he doesn't know what he's doing?  I could do that, and I would probably lose my job in less than a year's time.  He's put me in a difficult if not impossible position of doing my job under his incompetent leadership.  (I am far more experienced at this enterprise than he is; he needs me but resents me for needing me; yet he is still the boss.  If I want to remain in this job I have little choice but to remain externally "obedient" to him, no matter what I know inside.)  If I expend a lot of energy trying to prove him wrong, I may lose my job in the process.  I do have a choice to do my job correctly, ignoring him when possible and not risky, and encouraging others who have greater influence on him to learn his profession better.

[Miriam_M]

for the remainder Pope Francis is the Pope, and what he says and does, is logically what the Catholic Church stands for;

I believe that my position is shared by far more people, including many attending N.O. Masses, than you may realize:

My position is that the majority of the hierarchy, if not all, recognize him as a validly elected pope.  Much of that hierarchy has come to believe the errors that PF also believes, or at least professes publicly.  Therefore, it is not surprising that they would not be alarmed by his many public statements opposing many currently valid dogmas of the faith and pious practices of the faith.

That technical understanding of the current Seat does not mean that only sedes privately question PF's legitimacy.  Many do question, as I said above and said recently on a different thread.  From everything you yourself have posted on SD --other than matters of the current Seat itself-- my beliefs align with yours, regarding the faith, and PF is at odds with both of us.  From that fact, it is clear that neither you nor I, not to mention thousands of other Catholics --most of us associated only with traditionalist apostolates-- believe that:

what [PF] says and does, is logically what the Catholic Church stands for

Objectively, many if not most of PF's public utterances are not what the Catholic Church stands for.

[King Wenceslas]

LifeSiteNews.com reported on March 25, 2019:

by Dr. Maike Hickson

The Vatican's office for promoting interreligious dialogue has asked Catholic university professors to give the "widest possible dissemination" to a controversial joint statement signed by Francis last month that claims a "diversity of religions" is "willed by God." The office adds that he request comes from Francis himself (read full letter below).

The letter of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, which was obtained by LifeSiteNews, is dated February 21, 2019. It was sent last week to Catholic university professors in Rome, together with the attached "Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together" which Francis signed with Grand Imam Ahmad el-Tayeb in Abu Dhabi on February 4. 

Bishop Miguel Ayuso Guixot, secretary of the Pontifical Council, wrote inthe letter that the "Holy Father has asked this Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue to contribute to the widest possible dissemination of the Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together" as it had been originally signed by Francis and by Ahmad el-Tayeb, Grand Imam of Egypt's al-Azhar Mosque.

Guixot asked professors, priests, and sisters at universities to "facilitate the distribution, the study, and the reception" of the document, adding that the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue "will be grateful to you already now for any possible initiative, in the frame of this institution, which aims at the spreading of this Document."

The letter also quotes some passages from the Abu Dhabi document, in which both signatories pledge "to convey this Document to authorities, influential leaders, persons of religion all over the world, appropriate regional and international organizations, organizations within civil society, religious institutions and leading thinkers." The signers promise to "make known the principles contained in this Declaration at all regional and international levels, while requesting that these principles be translated into policies, decisions, legislative texts, courses of study and materials to be circulated." A further aim is to "educate new generations" in the sense of this document for world peace and fraternity among peoples and religions.