Jesuit leaders pray at Hindu shrine

[Layman]

Mark 9:

John 10:

I don’t see how either of those quotes justifies Catholic clergy or religious praying in a pagan/indifferentist/syncretist temple. There are souls to be saved. It’s one thing to watch your back in a hostile country; it’s quite another to validate a non-Christian religion by praying in their temples. It sends the wrong message to pagans and to Catholics.

 

[pnewton]

it’s quite another to validate a non-Christian religion by praying in their temples.

Nothing in the article said anything about validating non-Christian religions. That did not happen nor was it the intent, as the article described it.

I only quoted those passages to show where God told the disciples there may be more than we know, or to put it another way, we do not know everything. I noticed you did not venture a guess as to who the other sheep are that are not of the fold. I sure do not know, and I guess that is the point.

In any case, the above quote (the “Lord, Lord” one) does not apply. I know what that one is about as it is clarified in a parallel passage. It applies to a religion of lipservice while doing evil instead of living a life of charity.

 

[Layman]

I noticed you did not venture a guess as to who the other sheep are that are not of the fold. I sure do not know, and I guess that is the point.

I didn’t venture a guess. I don’t see how it’s relevant to Jesuits praying in a pagan temple. However, now that you mention it, I’m pretty sure Kali worshippers are not amongst them.

Picking and mixing your relgious beliefs and studies would be great fun if Hell was not an option in the afterlife. Time’s short and people need clear guidance, by example and well as by word.

 

[Lepanto]

This is what you get when you go down the road of indifferentism:

info.bahai.org/article-1-4-0-4.html

 

[thedavidwilson]

This is what you get when you go down the road of indifferentism:

info.bahai.org/article-1-4-0-4.html

The fundamental principle enunciated by Bahá’u’lláh, the followers of His Faith firmly believe, is that religious truth is not absolute but relative, that Divine Revelation is a continuous and progressive process, that all the great religions of the world are divine in origin, that their basic principles are in complete harmony, that their aims and purposes are one and the same, that their teachings are but facets of one truth, that their functions are complementary, that they differ only in the nonessential aspects of their doctrines, and that their missions represent successive stages in the spiritual evolution of human society.3

I have seen this on this thread. Perhaps we have some closet Bahá’í’s.

 

[cjellis27]

Fostering interfaith discussion and trust is the way to foster peace and love that Jesus proclaimed.

 

[Lepanto]

Fostering interfaith discussion and trust is the way to foster peace and love that Jesus proclaimed.

What exactly do you discuss?

And for what ultimate purpose?

 

[Layman]

Fostering interfaith discussion and trust is the way to foster peace and love that Jesus proclaimed.

I think a traditionalist ‘inter-faith discussion’ would go something like this:

Catholic priest: “Christ, by His life, death and resurrection has shown us The Way. Follow, and gain the Kingdom of Heaven. Fail, and risk damnation!”

Pagan: “…”.

It would save a lot of time.

I don’t see reports of people being converted by ‘inter-faith dialogue’ and ‘building of bridges’. I do see Catholics attending Protestant services and Anglican clerics smiling from the pages of my local diocesan magazine and widespread ignorance about doctrine and the Irish President deliberately ‘taking communion’ at a Protestant service.

I detest this supine, crowd-pleasing indifferentism I perceive has crept into Catholicism. If you want to see how it works out, have a look at the ‘inclusive diversity’ of Protestantism in England. To keep the peace, they’ve dumped doctrine. If you want to see how embracing the ‘New Age’ works in Catholicism, check out some of the sisters currently under investigation in America. Some elements of the latter creed: the de-personalisation of Jesus and the elevation of the Self.

 

[thedavidwilson]

I think a traditionalist ‘inter-faith discussion’ would go something like this:

Catholic priest: “Christ, by His life, death and resurrection has shown us The Way. Follow, and gain the Kingdom of Heaven. Fail, and risk damnation!”

Pagan: “…”.

It would save a lot of time.

I don’t see reports of people being converted by ‘inter-faith dialogue’ and ‘building of bridges’. I do see Catholics attending Protestant services and Anglican clerics smiling from the pages of my local diocesan magazine and widespread ignorance about doctrine and the Irish President deliberately ‘taking communion’ at a Protestant service.

I detest this supine, crowd-pleasing indifferentism I perceive has crept into Catholicism. If you want to see how it works out, have a look at the ‘inclusive diversity’ of Protestantism in England. To keep the peace, they’ve dumped doctrine. If you want to see how embracing the ‘New Age’ works in Catholicism, check out some of the sisters currently under investigation in America. Some elements of the latter creed: the de-personalisation of Jesus and the elevation of the Self.

Don’t worry. In another 20-30 years all of the hippies that have degraded the Church and misrepresented the faith will die off and we can get back to practicing the Catholic Faith. The young people see through these liberal stances and that is why the only religious order with an average age under 70 are those that are traditional, pray the divine office and where the habit.

 

[Stylites]

It sends the wrong message to pagans and to Catholics.

Perhaps you believe that Pope Benedict sends the “wrong message” when he prays in a synagogue or a mosque, or when Pope John Paul II beatified Blessed Mother Teresa since she also prayed in many Hindu temples. That would be unfortunate to so hold such a measure of pride in contradiction to what the Church teaches with Her words and deeds. How does a pious Catholic condemn these Jesuit priests for what the Pope and a Church-declared beatified person themselves did? Do the pious also condemn the Pope for not being Catholic enough for them?! Mother Teresa for giving them a bad example?! Heaven forbid!

In Jesus’ day there were many pious Catholics who abhored anyone who sent the “wrong message” to the masses by associating with harlots and tax collectors, or who didn’t perfectly observe the customs of their religion as they saw fit. They were the haughty and zealous and pious and secure Catholics of their day who upon seeing the presence of unclean persons in their neighborhood commenced to yell ‘Samaritan! Samaritan!’ while religiously raining holy stones down upon them. They were only doing the Lord’s work as they were commanded to do, or so they thought. I speak of course of the pious Pharisees.

This simile can be seen as entirely non-denominational (liberal, conservative, hippie orthodox, or stuffed-shirts reformed).

 

[Veridical16]

Here’s some more “backhanding” for you to mull over then: "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock.” . . . “For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

I believe that has to do with the Rick Warren types, those who seek to use Jesus for themselves, and profit, who’s name are more recognizable than the God they serve, when they sell Books and merchandise with water-downed Christianity. It’s also for those Christians who take pride in saying “i’m saved, therefore, I can shame others for being sinners” They seek to USE God for their own superiority or pride. Rather than admitting they’re a sinner as well, and praying to submit to the Lord’s will that HE use THEM as an instrument…they assume they are in the clear with Jesus, rather than praying for his mercy every day, as well as mercy for others.

It’s for those “Christians” who seek to use God as an instrument, to judge for the sake of judging! The hypocrites who don’t do his will, but show it off in order to be haughty.

You’re trying to make an argument, as if Catholics who uphold and do not take their faith lightly are at fault for being blunt and not mincing words about other Faiths being false?
That it is mean and unChristian like to recognize our faith as true and absolute.

There still has to be zeal and honest conviction, that what we believe is not something to be taken easily… I wouldn’t think the Martyrs would be so indifferent about the other religions if they could easily achieve salvation just by doing ‘good’…

I’d say, that quote applies to the one you admire so much Ramakrishna, who himself was so bold to say he found the “Reality of God” by treating Jesus like an entree on a poo poo platter.

Here’s another quote to mull, that it goes beyond just good works

For if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them.

And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do the same.
If you lend money to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit (is) that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, and get back the same amount.
But rather, love your enemies and do good to them, and lend expecting nothing back; then your reward will be great and you will be children of the Most High, for he himself is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked.
Be merciful, just as (also) your Father is merciful.

Many times in the Gospel Jesus reiterates that Catholicism/Christianity out of all the other nonsense you hear, does go the extra mile. Rather than man’s incomplete, imperfect view on goodness from God, where man interprets it first and it only goes so far in understanding how to do good. Jesus vs. every other religion gives you God’s complete view with goodness coming from God’s point of view first.
It’s not about meanness, it’s about the truth. It’s one of those moments where you learn a new piece of knowledge and it can’t be revoked. You automatically recognize the principle once learned.

And here is a quote to prove how “mean” Catholics are to other faiths in this thread.

Jesus said to him, “I am the way and the truth 5 and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you know me, then you will also know my Father. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”

Notice, a word is not wasted in the bible, “From Now on” implies we Catholics knowing what we know now, shouldn’t take this lightly.

It would be an insult to Jesus himself, to say “hey, yeah I was born Catholic, but I heard the attractive speeches from another man who says he knows all about God, and he says I can find out MORE about the Father, without needing the son…”

 

[Veridical16]

38 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.

39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.

40 For he that is not against us is on our part.

15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

Nothing in the article said anything about validating non-Christian religions. That did not happen nor was it the intent, as the article described it.

I only quoted those passages to show where God told the disciples there may be more than we know, or to put it another way, we do not know everything. I noticed you did not venture a guess as to who the other sheep are that are not of the fold. I sure do not know, and I guess that is the point.

John 10, (which was to a Jewish audience) refer to gentiles non Jews becoming adopted into the Israel fold–or the new branches grafted into the vine. I don’t think it has anything to do with many false religions leading to God also, which is a whole different issue entirely. While I agree God can so will a non Catholic to heaven, (there was a passage in Paul to the Romans that applies to those passages you posted)
and Mark 9, is kind of a call back to Jesus’ earlier mentions “Can Satan cast out Satan”

if they really doing work against evil, they can’t be against goodness.

Those quotes however don’t justify, that pseudo-semblance of “many paths to God” that some of the posters on here are alluding toward. In fact its encouragment to recognize that lost sheep will not be discriminated against when it comes to the Good News…and that the old prideful “Jewish Chosen People” thing was a misunderstanding on the Jews part. They were chosen because, it was earned through Abraham’s obedience. Just as Jesus reiterates many times that Mary was blessed because of her extraordinary will…so too it would be available for non-Jews, outside of the fold to be grafted, if their will is in sync with the Lords even if they don’t know it.

 

[Veridical16]

Perhaps you believe that Pope Benedict sends the “wrong message” when he prays in a synagogue or a mosque, or when Pope John Paul II beatified Blessed Mother Teresa since she also prayed in many Hindu temples. That would be unfortunate to so hold such a measure of pride in contradiction to what the Church teaches with Her words and deeds. How does a pious Catholic condemn these Jesuit priests for what the Pope and a Church-declared beatified person themselves did? Do the pious also condemn the Pope for not being Catholic enough for them?! Mother Teresa for giving them a bad example?! Heaven forbid!

You’re relying on an argument that was already addressed. Also it seems you don’t make distinctions between any of these three actions of these which were all different in their own way. I believe Pope Benedict would not agree with you at all because his view on interfaith dialogue, and ‘ecumenism’ is more in line with the very Catholics you criticize today.

In Jesus’ day there were many pious Catholics who abhored anyone who sent the “wrong message” to the masses by associating with harlots and tax collectors, or who didn’t perfectly observe the customs of their religion as they saw fit. They were the haughty and zealous and pious and secure Catholics of their day who upon seeing the presence of unclean persons in their neighborhood commenced to yell ‘Samaritan! Samaritan!’ while religiously raining holy stones down upon them. They were only doing the Lord’s work as they were commanded to do, or so they thought. I speak of course of the pious Pharisees.

This simile can be seen as entirely non-denominational (liberal, conservative, hippie orthodox, or stuffed-shirts reformed).

Do not equate Cathoics with Pharisees. This is wrong and false. I’ve seen protestants use that metaphor against us, and it’s a shame that a Catholic is doing it to his fellow Catholics who have legitimate concerns about proper actions.

Your admiration for Ramakrishna removes your credibility. You shouldn’t be attack ing Catholics on this thread for saying the right things. You should learn that your views on upholding people like Ramakrishna at the expense of Catholicism under the guise of “interfaith dialogue” are dangerous.
This isn’t about actions against men, it’s about knowing that all the other ideologies-Hinduism fall short, and are to be rejected. But you right now, do not make the distinction, you falsely think that there’s a judgmental accusation against those who are outside the faith, rather than seeing it a defensive concern against elements of other faiths that are poison to the truth. With New Age nonsense going on in 2009, the criticisms in this thread are valid and you need to catch up to speed with knowing why Hinduism and the Many Paths to God is Moral Relativism/Religions are equal BS.

You mention Pope Benedict? Well I suggest you read his speech about the “Dictatorship of Relativism” because this Krishna nonsense “Universal Religion” is along those lines.

 

[Veridical16]

On the topic of evangelizing people of other faiths there are some important points that must be kept in mind.

1. We must first keep in mind the gaol, to preach Christ crucified and risen.
2. We must also keep in mind the culture. Evangelization has take place within culture. We live within culture. We can’t escape it. I was edified on this point by the writings of Mother Teresa when she wrote that Jesus had commanded her to found an Indian congregation and chose an Indian form of dress and adopted many Indian customs in the way that the sisters pray, greet and even name their homes in India. None of them are named after saints. They are named after virtues, because these speak to the Indian people.
3. We must keep in mind safety. In India and other Asian countries it is very dangerous to simply walk up to the Hindus and say to them that they are a false religion and Catholicism is the only true religion. That can get several or many Christians killed. You have to build a relationship of trust and respect. I believe that this is what the Jesuits and Missionaries of Charity have achieved in India. Both groups are very much respected and trusted in India.

I was in the hospital, last month. I was praying the Liturgy of the Hours. My habit was hanging on a hook. It was very visible. And my son had brought me an icon of the the Blessed Mother, which was sitting on my tray table. One of the nurses was prepping me for a procedure. I could tell that she was Indian. We began to speak. As we spoke, she asked me if I was a Catholic priest. I told her that I was a Franciscan Friar. She said that she was not familiar with the Franciscans, but she was very familiar with the Jesuits. She proceded to explain that she was Catholic and that her home province, in the southern part of India, is predominantly Catholic. We continued to chat and she said that Jesuits were very big in her country and that they had educated and served the people of her province for many many years. When one of our brothers came with the Eucharist, she asked if she could receive communion too.

The reason that I’m narrating this is because we do not always know all of the circumstances that priests and religious in other nations have to live in. They have to work around some tough and delicate situations. Their approach is going to be different from our own.

**When we read an article such as the one that was linke in the OP, we don’t have enough information. **We have to learn how to read these things reminding ourselves that the information in print is incomplete and simply hope and pray that whatever the situation is, it will be effective in building the Kingdom of God.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I can agree with that calm outlook. But alternately, I think it is good that people are discussing possible legitimate concerns, as long as they’re not at the expense of judging these individuals involved (Jesuits, who may be innocent or misinterpreted), but the principle of matters of the actions and similar actions to these that don’t always end well (where similar priests did do wrong) are worth discussing/and reaffirming faith.

 

[Layman]

Had a thought:

Suppose a group of prominent Hindu swamis(?) came to pray at a Catholic church. How would we react? What would we think?

I would think:

1. Errr… why?
2. Possible converts!
3. A bit unctuous and/or hypocritical;
4. Ha! They acknowledge the rightness of our faith!
5. Who are they praying to?

And probably not:

1. A marvellous opportunity for inter-faith-dialogue-building-bridges-to-inclusivity-and-social-justice.

 

[JReducation]

I think that we’re reading too much into this article from our point of view and not enough from the point of view of the universal Church. There is no rule in the universal Church that forbids praying anywhere, in a temple, a mosque, a church or a toy store for that matter. Second, it has been done by very prominent people in the Church without confusion and without crisis. Some of already mentioned Bl. Mother Teresa, Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, Servant of God Cardinal O’Connor, possibly Francis of Assisi, Bl. John XXIII and who knows how many others whom we do not know.

If we’re going to get hung up on what our priest and religious do or not do in mission countries, let’s get hung up on something that is of major concern to the universal Church, such as priests living with local women and having children, missionaries who are antagonistic toward the local culture and customs and yet want to make converts of the local people while insulting them, priests and religious who support oppressive regimes in foreign countries with full knowledge that these regimes are causing much suffering, missionaries who do not bother to learn the local language, yet want to evangelize and much more.

I’ve been in the missions. Before I became ill, I spent 10 years in the Amazon missions and I saw many good and holy missionaries. I also saw many who made me feel very sad, because they didn’t want to be there and they showed it. They were there because they had been ordered by their bishops or religious superiors to be there. These did the minimum for the people and on top of that were very condescending and very arrogant.

I remember specifically certain missionaries who made little or no effort to learn Quichua and Guarani, the local languages. They learned enough to be able to celebrate mass and preach a sermon and that was it. They insisted on speaking English all the time, while living among people who did not speak European languages. Of course they were useless once mass was over, because they did not want to learn the language. Therefore, they could not serve in any other capacity.

If you speak to priests, brothers and sisters returning from the missions and ask them about some of these behaviors by the European and North American missionaries. You will be truly scandalized. Praying in a Hindu temple is small potatoes compared to some of these other behaviors and attitudes.

On the other hand, there are wonderful priests, brothers and sisters in the missions too. There are men and women who give their lives for the people whom they serve. They tolerate poverty, hunger and disease to be with their people. There are missionaries who never get to go home, because it’s too expensive and their religious communities can’t afford to bring them home on vacations. There are missionaries who embrace the poverty and humility of their people and reduce their lives to one meal a day and sleeping on dirt floors in order to give the people the money they receive from home. I lived with a brother who died of dehydration because he caught amoebas. We were 500 miles from the nearest hospital and had no car. By the time we got him to the nearest city his condition was hopeless. This brother was 39 years old, a theologian, a builder, a teacher and a youth minister. I had to stand there and pray over him as he said his last act of contrition on his death bed. By the time we reached a hospital his kydneys had shut down and he died four hours later. These are some of the more serious concerns about missionary life.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Siddhartha]

Please learn about Hinduism, as a courtesy to Hindus.