POLL: What do you think about "Dialogue"?

[CutlerB]

By the exceptionally inflated use of the word “dialogue” in today’s world to the degree that I cringe on someone uttering it, I came to ask myself: “What’s the point of [inter-religious] dialogue anyway?”

I don’t see the point in “dialogue”, at least not in the way I perceive it to be like. What are people hoping to achieve? I mean, i.e. Christian-Muslim “dialogue”. What do people think is going to come of it? Do Christians hope that Muslims will suddenly all convert and say “Oh dear, we’ve been wrong all along! God bless dialogue!”?

To me, “dialogue” sounds more like “Let’s talk about our views around a cup of tea”. Fancy talk but no results. I don’t think one can expect either side to change their religion, much less do I want to see a synthesis of both religions because that would most certainly be a false one.

As Christians, and Muslims would do the same, we believe our religion to be the only True Religion. Why then do we “degrade” (for lack of a better word, which is NOT to imply other people were worth less!) ourselves and sink to the level of another religion/worldview to talk about it and pretend everything were rose-coloured? Why not revive or reenforce mission?

Another example is interdenominational (though Catholicism is not a denomination) “dialogue”. I don’t see why we talk with denominations that are either schismatic and/or heretical in their beliefs and practice in a way that suggests the Catholic Church regarded them as on any level equal with Herself (Not the people, but the doctrine!). I’d favour throwing the full weight and power of the Church behind mission, calling things by what they are: Heresy.

Please don’t take this to mean I was hostile to anyone, though the words could be interpreted that way. I’m genuinely asking your opinion, and if you think I’m wrong on how I view “dialogue” and its purpose, please do correct me.

 

[Brendan_64]

From Unitatis Redintegratio.

“The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council. Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only. However, many Christian communions present themselves to men as the true inheritors of Jesus Christ; all indeed profess to be followers of the Lord but differ in mind and go their different ways, as if Christ Himself were divided.(1) Such division openly contradicts the will of Christ, scandalizes the world, and damages the holy cause of preaching the Gospel to every creature.”

Unitatis Redintegratio makes it very clear that dialogue is vital if we are to work to establish a united Body of Christ consisting of all Christians. We cannot simply turn our backs on our fellow Christians and shun them. We cannot simply stand by and accept division amongst Christians. We need to work together towards a united Body of Christ on Earth.

From Nostra Aetate

“The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.”

“The Church, therefore, exhorts her sons, that through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out with prudence and love and in witness to the Christian faith and life, they recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men.”

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html

Our Church instructs us that it is our duty to engage in dialogue with other Christian Faiths, and with other religions. If we reject dialogue with other Christian denominations, or if we reject dialogue with non-Christian religions, then we are rejecting the teaching of our Church.

 

[CutlerB]

From Unitatis Redintegratio.

“The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council. Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only. However, many Christian communions present themselves to men as the true inheritors of Jesus Christ; all indeed profess to be followers of the Lord but differ in mind and go their different ways, as if Christ Himself were divided.(1) Such division openly contradicts the will of Christ, scandalizes the world, and damages the holy cause of preaching the Gospel to every creature.”

Unitatis Redintegratio makes it very clear that dialogue is vital if we are to work to establish a united Body of Christ consisting of all Christians. We cannot simply turn our backs on our fellow Christians and shun them. We cannot simply stand by and accept division amongst Christians. We need to work together towards a united Body of Christ on Earth.

From Nostra Aetate

“The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.”

“The Church, therefore, exhorts her sons, that through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out with prudence and love and in witness to the Christian faith and life, they recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men.”

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html

Our Church instructs us that it is our duty to engage in dialogue with other Christian Faiths, and with other religions. If we reject dialogue with other Christian denominations, or if we reject dialogue with non-Christian religions, then we are rejecting the teaching of our Church.

Well, yes, but I still don’t see how that is going to help. What is better in “dialogue” than mission? I’m not turning my back on anyone, I just don’t see the point in pretending that everything will be fine if we just sit down and chat about our views. At some point, one needs to get serious, that is, go beyond talking and evangelise.

 

[Brendan_64]

Well, yes, but I still don’t see how that is going to help.

So talking to our separated Christians to develop an understanding of the reasons for our divisions is not necessary in order to heal those divisions?

What is better in “dialogue” than mission? I’m not turning my back on anyone, I just don’t see the point in pretending that everything will be fine if we just sit down and chat about our views.

Nobody is pretending this. Nobody thinks that a divided Body of Christ is “fine”.

At some point, one needs to get serious, that is, go beyond talking and evangelise.

And how do you evangelise without engaging in dialogue? Stand on a street corner with a sandwich board and a megaphone telling people that they are all going to burn in hell unless they convert? Do you think that approach would be more successful?

We might all have individual opinions about what the Church ought to teach us, but it is not our place to determine what our Church ought to teach us, nor is it our place to determine which teachings we each ought to follow. Nostra Aetate and Unitatis Redintegratio form part of the teachings of our Church. Reject them at your peril.

 

[CutlerB]

So talking to our separated Christians to develop an understanding of the reasons for our divisions is not necessary in order to heal those divisions?

No. But quite honestly, I don’t think modern “dialogue” was what Catholics did with the Gnostics. I’m not denying that knowing the reasons is important. Quite the opposite! But I haven’t really observed any noteworthy advance on unity.

Nobody is pretending this. Nobody thinks that a divided Body of Christ is “fine”.

Well, that’s how it appears to me. I hear “Let’s have DIALOGUE!” all the time, but what that mostly seems to mean here in Germany (I can’t speak for other regions) is we talk at each other and argue until one side gives in.

And how do you evangelise without engaging in dialogue? Stand on a street corner with a sandwich board and a megaphone telling people that they are all going to burn in hell unless they convert? Do you think that approach would be more successful?

We might all have individual opinions about what the Church ought to teach us, but it is not our place to determine what our Church ought to teach us, nor is it our place to determine which teachings we each ought to follow. Nostra Aetate and Unitatis Redintegratio form part of the teachings of our Church. Reject them at your peril.

I do not favour that approach. All I’m saying is that what I perceive here in my country is playing on as if there were no difference, glossing over everything, or worse: Catholics protestantising themselves. I am not rejecting anything, how often must I say that. I disagree over the WAY dialogue is done here, not that we need some form of dialogue.

 

[Ion]

My opinion is that the purpose is to know each other and to stick together for the preservation of our values. But the christians are in the most developed countries and the others didn’t really feel the impact of the modernism/atheism yet. So the muslims continue to harass other religions in their countries, maybe the immigrants understand better but rather not because they didn’t “feel it”. And regarding catholics orthodox and protestants nobody is that desperate to make concesions, YET.

 

[adf417]

I voted “generally good, badly practiced”.

In my experiences with trying to dialogue outside, and sometimes inside, my faith, more often it seems what is supposed to be a dialogue would be better defined a double monologue. If this conversation is continued to its fullest what becomes evident is at least one party begins to show signs of being closed minded (cannot define this at this time). A dialogue as defined here, infed.org/mobi/dialogue-and-conversation/
in my experience, has only been experienced with truly open minded parties.

I don’t think dialogue is the problem per se. I do believe our motivations which direct our dialogues become the issue and therefore “what is truth” becomes subjective.

Peace!!!

 

[Rocky24]

Read Pope Pius XI’s encyclical Mortalium Animos on Ecumenism and Religious Unity.

 

[LisaA]

The goals may be laudable but too often “dialogue” means sit down and let the more powerful or persistent of the parties hit the others over the head with a sledgehammer and hope they capitulate.

We can “dialogue” all we want with the Episcopalian Church but they are not going to give up abortion and supporting homosexual marriage for example. We can “dialogue” all we want with Muslims, even moderate Muslims, but they are not going to change their mind and accept Jesus Christ nor are we going to toss Jesus under the bus and embrace Mohahmed.

My favorite rabbi says “Clarity over agreement.” IOW be clear about your position, what areas are negotiable and which are not. Offer the same consideration to the other party. If there are areas of agreement work on those. For example I see Catholics and Evangelicals side by side in the pro life movement. Neither of us are going to give up our strongly held beliefs but we come together in the protection of life.

I’ve always been believer in doing not just yammering about things. It’s usually obvious immediately where the bones of contention lie and the likelihood of their being any sort of movement toward one position or the other or a compromise.

“Dialogue” has become one of those cringe inducing words right up there with “diversity” (a POX on that one).

Lisa

 

[St_Francis]

Cutler,
Maybe you are thnking as I sometimes do, that talk is not going to get us anywhere; after all, we know we are right, bit they think they are right, so the “dialogue” seems pointless.

But some people are persuaded by these types of discussions, generally over a very long period of time.

Maybe dialogue has a place, but in context. On the one hand, missionaries used to find out what the local people believed, but on the other hand, the missionaries figured out what the local people needed and tended to those needs. The missionaries also showed a lifestyle that was very loving and which contributed to happiness.

Church teaching tends to be like a shepherd guiding his flock. Since we tend to be inexperienced with sheep, I liken the process to teaching someone to drive ( one of The Most Scariest Things I have done in my life!). I told my child, don’t go so close to the edge of the road, stay more in the middle… no, don’t go over the center line, stay more towards the edge of the road. The student needs to learn to stay in the middle by avoiding the extremes, but there is more than one extreme.

So it is with the Church! Sometimes She must tell us to go more towards the right, other times, more to the left. The one does not contradict the other, does it? No, the instructions complement each other.

I think the Church in Her wisdon saw that we needed to interact with other ecclesial communities, to talk with them, in order to help them see the truth. Remember that Christ instructed us to go out and **teach **all nations. In order to draw people into learning, we must first show respect by dialogue, by listening to them so they will listen to us.

But I think that maybe some of us may rely too much on dialogue, and have lost the helping and showing parts (while others rely too much on those). So we needed a reminder that we cannot simply leave other Christian ecclesial communities out of our missions; they too need to come back to the fullness of truth found in the Catholic Church.

 

[Brendan_64]

I am not rejecting anything, how often must I say that. I disagree over the WAY dialogue is done here, not that we need some form of dialogue.

Well the remark you made earlier would suggest that you do reject dialogue and you state we should not talk to any denominations that are either schismatic or heretical. That rules out dialogue with all Christian denominations.

I don’t see why we talk with denominations that are either schismatic and/or heretical in their beliefs and practice in a way that suggests the Catholic Church regarded them as on any level equal with Herself (Not the people, but the doctrine!). I’d favour throwing the full weight and power of the Church behind mission, calling things by what they are: Heresy.

And that really would help further Christian unity and evangelisation wouldn’t it? Don’t talk to other Christian denominations at all (because they are schismatic and heretical) and publicly declare in the loudest possible terms that they are all heretics. We do actually believe that these faiths are heretical, but shouting this from the rooftops will achieve nothing.

So you are in favour of dialogue, but not with schismatic or heretical denominations? That rules out everybody apart from the Catholic Church. So you are in favour of dialogue, but only of it involves talking to ourselves?

 

[LisaA]

So you are in favour of dialogue, but not with schismatic or heretical denominations? That rules out everybody apart from the Catholic Church. So you are in favour of dialogue, but only of it involves talking to ourselves?

I didn’t interpret it that way at all. I don’t think we rule out dialogue but just be aware of its limitations and not base our hopes and plans upon dialogue, particularly if we are a mind to change someone else’s deeply held beliefs.

I think we must be collegial and open but quite honestly “dialogue” has done precious little in re-uniting the scattered flocks within Christiandom much less convincing Muslims or Jews to accept Christ.

Lisa

 

[CutlerB]

The goals may be laudable but too often “dialogue” means sit down and let the more powerful or persistent of the parties hit the others over the head with a sledgehammer and hope they capitulate.

We can “dialogue” all we want with the Episcopalian Church but they are not going to give up abortion and supporting homosexual marriage for example. We can “dialogue” all we want with Muslims, even moderate Muslims, but they are not going to change their mind and accept Jesus Christ nor are we going to toss Jesus under the bus and embrace Mohahmed.

My favorite rabbi says “Clarity over agreement.” IOW be clear about your position, what areas are negotiable and which are not. Offer the same consideration to the other party. If there are areas of agreement work on those. For example I see Catholics and Evangelicals side by side in the pro life movement. Neither of us are going to give up our strongly held beliefs but we come together in the protection of life.

I’ve always been believer in doing not just yammering about things. It’s usually obvious immediately where the bones of contention lie and the likelihood of their being any sort of movement toward one position or the other or a compromise.

“Dialogue” has become one of those cringe inducing words right up there with “diversity” (a POX on that one).

Lisa

I quite agree.

Church teaching tends to be like a shepherd guiding his flock. Since we tend to be inexperienced with sheep, I liken the process to teaching someone to drive ( one of The Most Scariest Things I have done in my life!). I told my child, don’t go so close to the edge of the road, stay more in the middle… no, don’t go over the center line, stay more towards the edge of the road. The student needs to learn to stay in the middle by avoiding the extremes, but there is more than one extreme.

So it is with the Church! Sometimes She must tell us to go more towards the right, other times, more to the left. The one does not contradict the other, does it? No, the instructions complement each other.

I think the Church in Her wisdon saw that we needed to interact with other ecclesial communities, to talk with them, in order to help them see the truth. Remember that Christ instructed us to go out and **teach **all nations. In order to draw people into learning, we must first show respect by dialogue, by listening to them so they will listen to us.

But I think that maybe some of us may rely too much on dialogue, and have lost the helping and showing parts (while others rely too much on those). So we needed a reminder that we cannot simply leave other Christian ecclesial communities out of our missions; they too need to come back to the fullness of truth found in the Catholic Church.

That analogy does help quite a bit. I just hope that certain “dialogues” get the next instruction to correct soon.

Well the remark you made earlier would suggest that you do reject dialogue and you state we should not talk to any denominations that are either schismatic or heretical. That rules out dialogue with all Christian denominations.

Forgive me, but that is not what I meant. What I meant was that the Catholic side should not consider itself on equal worth (doctrine, not person!) with the heretical party but above it. IOW: Don’t forget who you are. That’s all I wanted to say.

And that really would help further Christian unity and evangelisation wouldn’t it? Don’t talk to other Christian denominations at all (because they are schismatic and heretical) and publicly declare in the loudest possible terms that they are all heretics. We do actually believe that these faiths are heretical, but shouting this from the rooftops will achieve nothing.

So you are in favour of dialogue, but not with schismatic or heretical denominations? That rules out everybody apart from the Catholic Church. So you are in favour of dialogue, but only of it involves talking to ourselves?

Again, I am not saying “Go tell every Protestant they are going to hell!”. No, what I am trying to convey is that among Catholics things shouldn’t become watered down and we all pretend we’re the best of friends and it really doesn’t matter all that much to which church you go. I apologise for losing myself in words sometimes, even using wrong ones.

I am in favour of understanding each other’s (I never know where to put the apostrophe) positions. I am in favour of clearing up misunderstandings in inter-religious dialogue. I am NOT in favour of putting hands over one’s eyes and singing happy songs of imaginative unity. We’ve got to stay aware of what is true and what isn’t.

 

[Brendan_64]

I didn’t interpret it that way at all.

Well if a person explicitly states that they are against dialogue with faiths and religions that the Church regards as heretical, then that rules out dialogue with anyone, but ourselves.

I don’t think we rule out dialogue but just be aware of its limitations and not base our hopes and plans upon dialogue, particularly if we are a mind to change someone else’s deeply held beliefs.

Of course dialogue has its limitations, but it’s pretty difficult to try to convince others if you don’t even talk to them.

I think we must be collegial and open but quite honestly “dialogue” has done precious little in re-uniting the scattered flocks within Christiandom much less convincing Muslims or Jews to accept Christ.

Things take time. At least Christians are now talking to one another, meeting, studying the Bible together, working on joint Christian ventures, going on ‘walks of Faith’ together etc. These things come about as a result of an understanding of each other and a realisation that we are followers of Christ with much common ground. In my book that is a lot better than burning each other at the stake as heretics, trashing each other’s churches, and each yelling angrily at the other that they’re going to burn in hell. We may not be one Church, but we are closer together as Christians. Surely the closer together the Body of Christ on Earth is, the better, even if we are still quite a way from unity?

 

[GEddie]

It seems to me that S. Paul engaged in dialogue in Athens, during the Acts of the Apostles.

The Church does not have power to slam its message into everybody’s head, even if this were morally permissible. We have to meet others where they stand, and for that we need to know where they stand.

ICXC NIKA

 

[CutlerB]

Well if a person explicitly states that they are against dialogue with faiths and religions that the Church regards as heretical, then that rules out dialogue with anyone, but ourselves.

Are you referring to where I said “No” on whether “talking to our separated Christian brethren” was necessary? If so, I did not mean “No, it is unnecessary.” I meant “No, I don’t think that.”

 

[eschator83]

Oh, how humans love to criticize. It’s so much easier to criticize and complain than it is to think of and explain constructive suggestions.
Religions of almost every hue seek peace and well-being for mankind, as well as worship for the Divine. Dialogue in general is the search for cooperation and celebration of these goals and efforts.
Sadly, so many religious insist they know everything, and all others are at least partially wrong. I think this stems from misunderstanding the concept of “all truth;” I think Jesus meant that everything He and the Advocate taught was true–but They very obviously have not attempted yet to teach us everything about this age or the next. And we couldn’t understand if they had.
So where is the harm in sharing our hopes and dreams?
I do admit that Islam seems more a concept of government than a religion, and should be denied the privileges and respect of a religion until it renounces violence.

 

[LisaA]

Things take time. At least Christians are now talking to one another, meeting, studying the Bible together, working on joint Christian ventures, going on ‘walks of Faith’ together etc. These things come about as a result of an understanding of each other and a realisation that we are followers of Christ with much common ground. In my book that is a lot better than burning each other at the stake as heretics, trashing each other’s churches, and each yelling angrily at the other that they’re going to burn in hell. We may not be one Church, but we are closer together as Christians. Surely the closer together the Body of Christ on Earth is, the better, even if we are still quite a way from unity?

Brendan you are simply restating the obvious. Who would propose burning at the stake or even yelling at each other? Who has?

I see you live in the UK so maybe you are not aware of the Westboro Baptist “Church” which is a family “church” that spends time and money protesting funerals with absolutely the most disgusting and hateful language. No one takes them seriously as a Christian church much less representing the Baptist faith. Further no one bothers to dialogue with them as they are determine to spend time doing nothing but spewing venom.

Beyond that where have ANY of these incidents occurred other than as with the WBC, a few lone nuts? More dangerous are the Islamists who bomb, hack, and shoot those with whom they disagree. You just do not see members of the Church even yelling at each other much less building a fire and pounding in a stake
Lisa

 

[PietroPaolo]

Read Pope Pius XI’s encyclical Mortalium Animos on Ecumenism and Religious Unity.

And remember Mortalium Animos is every bit as much as part of the Magisterium as either Unitatis Redintegratio or Nostra Aetate.

Is it not right, it is often repeated, indeed, even consonant with duty, that all who invoke the name of Christ should abstain from mutual reproaches and at long last be united in mutual charity?.. All Christians, they add, should be as “one”: for then they would be much more powerful in driving out the pest of irreligion… These things and others that class of men who are known as pan-Christians …even takes possession of the minds of very many Catholics and allures them with the hope of bringing about such a union as would be agreeable to the desires of Holy Mother Church…lies hid a most grave error, by which the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed…This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ…For here there is question of defending revealed truth…why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it.

The whole document is well worth reading. It is especially important to read documents like Nostra Aetate and Unitatis Redintegratio in light of previous magisterial teaching.

God bless.

here.MORTALIUM ANIMOS

 

[Brendan_64]

Are you referring to where I said “No” on whether “talking to our separated Christian brethren” was necessary? If so, I did not mean “No, it is unnecessary.” I meant “No, I don’t think that.”

I’m referring to this statement you made.

I don’t see why we talk with denominations that are either schismatic and/or heretical in their beliefs and practice

That is pretty clear. If you’re opposed to dialogue with schismatic and/or heretical denominations then who exactly are we to have dialogue with? Ourselves?

If we don’t talk to denominations that we regard as heretical or schismatic, then we can only talk to ourselves.