Am I wrong to be scandalized here? If so, can someone explain this to me?

[Magdalena59]

I don’t understand. Isn’t Jesus everywhere (according to Christian theology)? What does that matter?

You are correct, Jesus is spiritually everywhere but he is present to us in a very special physical way in the Holy Tabernacles of the Catholic church. We partake of that presence whenever we participate in Holy Communion. Our Catholic catechism explains it very well.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm

Also, here are some sites that explain of Eucharistic (Holy Communion) miracles that have happened over time:

catholic.com/magazine/articles/eucharistic-miracles-evidence-of-the-real-presence

michaeljournal.org/eucharist3.htm

God bless.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

What you have posted is true but only to a certain extent.

1. Indonesia has the largest number of Muslims in the world. It has chosen to remain a secular state. There are others.

Islam in Indonesia is a complex and evolving reality. This article from Wikipedia is enlightening. So is this one, from which I quote

The American sociologist, Clifford Geertz, identified three main cultural streams (aliran in Indonesian) in Javanese society. Namely, the santri, abangan, and priyayi. Members of the Santri class are more likely to be urban dwellers, and tend to be oriented to the mosque, the Qur’an, and perhaps to Islamic canon law (Sharia). In contrast, the abangan tend to be from village backgrounds and absorb both Hindu and Muslim elements, forming a culture of animist and folk traditions, it is also claimed that this particular class originated from Sindhi sailors, who had settled in Java.

1. If a country became a Catholic state with a minority of non-Catholics, wouldn’t it be likely that the most fanatical, the most power hungry, will try to control the rest by whatever means?

An overview of the history of Catholic Europe should answer that question. Actually, the question is an interesting one and there is a lot in the answer. But bottom line - no fanaticism.

There were Japanese suicide bombers during WWII.

Yes, and the Japanese weren’t Christian. Another social religion.

ISIS does not practise Islam.

Yes it does - an extreme form of Islam, or rather, an example of the fanaticism that can arise from Islam and could not arise from Catholicism.

Not one Muslim?muslim majority country defends them.

Prominent moderate Moslems do not support them, but that does not mean that Islam itself does not give them the leit motif they need. And Saudi clerics were very loathe to condemn them.

We can bash Islam or be an advocate of peace.

Or we can recognise that Islam, being a false religion, has errors that contain a real potential for harm. If you want peace, prepare for war.

Your Muslim co-worker may be a fanatic, not all Muslims are. The most notorious are also the most publicised.

The most notorious - like Ayatollah Khomeini - can wield enormous influence.

 

[japhy]

How often do these events get held in mosques? How often do Catholic priests get invited to interfaith gatherings in mosques, where they are free to speak from the Gospel?

 

[twf]

That may be true, but it doesn’t mean we have to be equally inhospitable. We’re called to be artisans of peace, not to always reply in kind when we’re not shown kindness.

So, you refuse to do anything they won’t do? Think about that for a few minutes.

My objection isn’t related to hospitality or refusing to do what they won’t do. My objection is related to the sanctity of the sanctuary. My point regarding the mosque was that Muslims would not allow the sacred rites of another religion to be celebrated in their sacred place. Why should we allow the sacred rites of another religion to be celebrated in our sanctuary - the holy of holies - which should be reserved for the holy sacrifice of the mass? I would not object to such an inter-faith event, including a reading of the Quran, in the Church hall.

 

[twf]

Twf seems to be objecting to a Muslim speaking in a church because they wouldn’t let a priest lead a rosary in a mosque.

I simply don’t think we should use their actions as a standard for ours, that’s all.

See my post above. I wasn’t objecting to the speaker so much as the Imam chanting the Quran in Arabic from the sanctuary. For Muslims, chanting the Quran is a sacred act. It is probably their closest equivalent to the celebration of the Eucharist for Catholics. The sanctuary of a consecrated Catholic Church should be reserved for our sacred rites. The chanting of the Quran has no place there, just as the recitation of the rosary has no place in a mosque. The same event could have been hosted in the parish hall. Or at the very least, the Imam could have chanted the Quran from within the nave. If informed that the sanctuary is a most holy place set apart for the sacrifice of the mass, they would have respected that without offense.

 

[twoshoes]

I agree. At the 2009 World Oblate’s Congress in Rome the them was inter-religious dialogue. We had a panel consisting of a Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim (a married couple in fact) a Jew and a Catholic talking briefly to us about their faiths and inter-religious dialogue. They weren’t trying to proselytize us, they were just helping us understand their faith bit better to give us grounds for dialogue.

I would point out that this initiative came from the highest levels and the Undersecretary of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue gave us a very good talk on the subject of inter-religious dialogue.

I would recommend your reread the op’s original post. I haven’t found a post on this thread that was critical of inter-religious or inter- faith discussions. The problem is where it toke place. I think inter faith to mean between people of the same faith,(Christianity), inter meaning within the faith. I would not consider a religion that doe not considers Jesus Christ the Son of God, and does not recognize the Spirit of God, as within the Christian Faith. I would expect those talks to be inter-religious. These talk are very necessary and should be in any location outside of the Church proper. Parrish Hall, Parrish Conference rooms, as an example. The Son of God sets at the right hand of God and is much more than a prophet.

Your experience was not the same as the OP 's, they where teaching from the Koran.

 

[aTraditionalist]

I’m so tired of false ecumenism. Our mission is to baptise all nations not cultivating an erroneous sense of religious equality.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

 

[OraLabora]

I would recommend your reread the op’s original post. I haven’t found a post on this thread that was critical of inter-religious or inter- faith discussions. The problem is where it toke place. I think inter faith to mean between people of the same faith,(Christianity), inter meaning within the faith. I would not consider a religion that doe not considers Jesus Christ the Son of God, and does not recognize the Spirit of God, as within the Christian Faith. I would expect those talks to be inter-religious. These talk are very necessary and should be in any location outside of the Church proper. Parrish Hall, Parrish Conference rooms, as an example. The Son of God sets at the right hand of God and is much more than a prophet.

Your experience was not the same as the OP 's, they where teaching from the Koran.

I can assure you I read the OP’s post.

I failed to see scandal when I first read it, and I fail to see scandal now.

BTW your description of “inter-faith” is actually “intra-faith” (within the same faith).

 

[severus68]

I’m so tired of false ecumenism. Our mission is to baptise all nations not cultivating an erroneous sense of religious equality.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

Our mission is to spread the Gospel, whether by word or action.

 

[aTraditionalist]

severus68:

Quote:

Originally Posted by aTraditionalist

I’m so tired of false ecumenism. Our mission is to baptise all nations not cultivating an erroneous sense of religious equality.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

Our mission is to spread the Gospel, whether by word or action.

Agreed. I was taking a very broad stroke here.

Modern ecumenism seemingly implies that we are to appreciate and condone the error of others. It just gets old.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

 

[banarick]

Forgive me if I lose my head over this. Maybe the Imam cited Surah 98:6 “the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) an Al-Mushrikun will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures” or surah 5:51"Take not the Jews and Christians as friends" Oh, I kill me.
I like the Mafia like verse 9:29 to fight Jews and Christians til they pay protection and feel subdued.
It would be much better if everyone read, “Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn’t” by Robert Spencer. Google Jihad Watch for current events and an education.

 

[ProVobis]

In particular, allowing Muslim prayers in Arabic in a Church is very problematic unless a competent translator is present to understand what is being said.

Why is that problematic, whether or not there are competent translations? Some, if not most, of Maronite liturgies are in Arabic. It’s not like it’s a banned language in Church. Maybe we should ask them if anything in English is offensive to them.

 

[twf]

Why is that problematic, whether or not there are competent translations? Some, if not most, of Maronite liturgies are in Arabic. It’s not like it’s a banned language in Church. Maybe we should ask them if anything in English is offensive to them.

The offensive element is the sacred rites of another religion (and yes, for Muslims chanting the Quran is a most sacred act of worship) being celebrated in the consecrated sanctuary of a Catholic church. The sanctuary should be reserved for Christian worship. It is a holy place set apart for the sacrifice of the mass. As I noted in earlier posts, I wouldn’t take issue with this event had it been held in the church hall. Since when did our sanctuary become such a casual “multi-purpose” location? When did we cease to be a sacramental faith?

Muslims would never allow a Christian worship service to be held in a mosque. They would certainly understand if we informed them that our sanctuaries are similarly off limits. I would even be OK if the imam had performed the ritual (again, chanting the Quran is a ritualistic act of worship for Muslims) from within the nave, rather than from within the sanctuary itself.

You who support these actions…would you have been equally comfortable if a statue of a Hindu god had been placed on the altar followed by Hindu chants - in the name of ecumenism? Where do you draw the line?

 

[ProVobis]

You who support these actions…would you have been equally comfortable if a statue of a Hindu god had been placed on the altar followed by Hindu chants - in the name of ecumenism? Where do you draw the line?

I see your point but if I’m not mistaken, that’s a Vatican II issue. It’s not what we personally support or not.

 

[twoshoes]

Our mission is to spread the Gospel, whether by word or action.

How do you spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ by spread the word of Mohammed in a RCC. We are putting the teachings of Mohammed on the same level as the Son of God. To me this is very problematic. if not sacrilege.

 

[twf]

I see your point but if I’m not mistaken, that’s a Vatican II issue. It’s not what we personally support or not.

Vatican II promoted ecumenism, yes, but that doesn’t mean we are obliged, as Catholics, to support the celebration of the sacred rites of non-Catholic religions in our consecrated sanctuaries. There’s no reason why ecumenical activities can’t be conducted elsewhere.