POLL: What do you think about "Dialogue"?

[Brendan_64]

Beyond that where have ANY of these incidents occurred other than as with the WBC, a few lone nuts?

Go back a few years in history and you will indeed see many examples of Christians burning each other as heretics, trashing churches, and yelling angrily at each other. You are correct, in that we see little of that these days, now that we actually talk to each other and treat each other’s beliefs with a degree of respect and tolerance (although you just need to pop over to Northern Ireland and there are certain Churches there that preach venom against Catholics regularly). Dialogue does yield results over time, but unfortunately today we expect instant results. If we don’t see dramatic results in a few years we declare it a “waste of time”. Working towards Christian unity is not something that will take place within a few decades, maybe not even within a few centuries, but it WILL happen. It has to.

 

[LisaA]

Go back a few years in history and you will indeed see many examples of Christians burning each other as heretics, trashing churches, and yelling angrily at each other. You are correct, in that we see little of that these days, now that we actually talk to each other and treat each other’s beliefs with a degree of respect and tolerance. Dialogue does yield results over time, but unfortunately today we expect instant results. If we don’t see dramatic results in a few years we declare it a “waste of time”. Working towards Christian unity is not something that will take place within a few decades, maybe not even within a few centuries, but it WILL happen. It has to.

Really? Wow those events were missed by me…burning each other…trashing churches? Really? Other than the occasional nut on a corner or the WBC, I really do not see too much violence between people of faith. I DO see a LOT of such hateful talk between the powers of secularism, pro aborts, militant gays and people of faith (all denominations). In fact I think one reason we are working more closely with other faith traditions on such issues as life, traditional marriage, is that we feel the strength in our connection as Christians and Jews vis a vis the anti-religion cohort.

Again I don’t see much point in dialogue regarding differing beliefs----trying to convince Episcopalians and Methodists that abortion is evil seems like a fool’s errand. Rather we stand for our beliefs, work in the vineyard and hope our actions have influence. Don’t shut down dialogue or prohibit it but understand it’s probably futile. That being said our Parish has many ecumenical efforts regarding corporal works of mercy and that provides an opportunity to dialogue without going into battle.

Lisa

 

[CutlerB]

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

Thank goodness I’m not asking anyone to slam something into anyone’s head.

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.

Well, I agree with you. I don’t like to be criticising without any proposal for remedy. I really don’t, but you will notice that this is also an attempt to find out what others think, so I thought I’d share my views.

I’m referring to this statement you made.

Too bad you leave of this part:

in a way that suggests the Catholic Church regarded them as on any level equal with Herself (Not the people, but the doctrine!).

THAT is what I don’t think we should do. As restated many times now, I believe whenever the Church engages in dialogue (which is here in Germany, since I don’t know what it’s like in your place) She should remember who She is and Whom She represents. That’s all I’m talking about.

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?

See the above. It’s only “pretty clear” if you misquote me.

 

[St_Francis]

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

Weeelllllll, I don’t know. It seems like the Church frequently does not issue instructions, and some instructions are impossible to issue. What I think we need is first, for Catholics to pray more! Prayer will bring more of God’s aid to the world, and then more can be accomplished. We need larger families so that we have more people to do what needs to be done, esp those people who dedicate themselves fully to God, then others will get help and see the example of God’s love for them.

So rather than seeing the Church as some sort of monolith which must be entirely involved one one activity or another, as usual in Catholicism, it is not either/or. Some people are sent to engage in dialogue. Others are sent to do other things. Some are not born at all because of violations of God’s laws, and so what God intended them to do doesn’t happen.

But we are all called to worship God, to pray, fast, and offer alms. God will make the correction if we cooperate with Him.

 

[Brendan_64]

Really? Wow those events were missed by me…burning each other…trashing churches? Really?

Those events may have been missed by you, but they weren’t missed by my mother-in-law who was burned out of her home in the 1970’s by a Protestant mob (because she was a Catholic). That was a pretty common occurrence back then. Just ten years ago the Catholic Church in the town I grew up in was set on fire by Protestants. Then there is the cases of some Protestants trying to get hold of consecrated hosts by pretending to be Catholic in order to publicly desecrate them. That’s Northern Ireland for you. Mind you it also happens in Scotland (to a lesser extent). Certain parties in Northern Ireland aren’t exactly big on inter-faith dialogue it would seem.

However I was really referring to events further back in time. Go back only a few hundred years and burning of heretics was the norm. Thankfully we talk to each other these days. That in itself is progress.

 

[concretecamper]

I believe the danger in dialogue is that all Christian faiths are viewed as equal. The end game of any conversation MUST be to bring everyone to the One true Faith…not to win an argument but to possibly save souls.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

 

[CutlerB]

I believe the danger in dialogue is that all Christian faiths are viewed as equal. The end game of any conversation MUST be to bring everyone to the One true Faith…not to win an argument but to possibly save souls.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

That’s my view.

 

[CaptFun]

From the poll it asked me to specify below (since I voted “Other”).

When a Catholic dialogues it should be as part of the “go therefore and teach all nations …” commission – and that should not be forgotten.

The Catholic side of the dialogue can listen and learn and find common ground with the other party, even unto admitting that the others do some things better than most Catholics.

For example: praising a Muslim you are “dialoguing with” for their commitment to prayer (publicly stopping to pray many times a day in some cases) and that giving alms to the poor is a high value we share.

But from the get go it is good to remember within ourselves that Mohammed never claimed to be “the way, the truth, and the life …” or “the true vine …” or the “Son of God …” or the “Son of Man …”. And so dialogue would not go so far as to approach an equivalent reckoning of Jesus Christ and Mohammed.

Whereas one might defer personally to the one dialogued with, a Catholic must avoid
arriving at such a broad common denominator while building bridges that an " … it doesn’t matter …" conclusion is preferred to a greater realization of the truth (of which Jesus starkly proclaims “I AM the Truth …”).

Sometimes the “dialogue” is better when one is just living out the faith in a way that draws others to Christ.

With “other Christians” it might be best to keep our eyes on Christ and work shoulder to shoulder where possible rather than re-fight the theological battles of the 1500s all over again. For His own purposes God has kept creating people, and some of these He has created to be born into “Protestant” families … where Christ is honored and taught though that family is not in Communion with the Church Jesus founded. Nonetheless, these have not LEFT the Church, but have never (quite fully) belonged to it (notwithstanding that the Church recognizes the valid baptisms performed in Christ’s name and using the proper formula – that is … some “non-Catholic” people may be more Catholic than they suspect!

Having gone through the cautions (and remarking that sometimes due to insincerity, theological muddiness and minimalism dialogue CAN be a waste of time on occasion) – it must be said that dialogue probably preceded many a conversion to the faith. And these days we are seeing whole congregations (especially of Anglicans/Episcopalians) joining the Church – no doubt after some dialogue.

So my “Other” vote was not an idle one or a “who cares;” but rather a defining of parameters for fruitful dialogue.

I do remember saying to a minister of “another sect of Christianity” whom I see working hard to teach (mostly unchurched kids) about Jesus during one of our “informal dialogues” that we should "keep our eyes on Christ as we walk toward Him … and we will likely find ourselves much closer to one another and allies - even if we remain “other parts of the body”.

It is good for Catholics to know their faith and be ready with a Charitable and insightful answer when questioned. When it comes to “other Christians” many of the questions one typicallly gets are answered in this Apologetics Cheat Sheet … which (I appreciate) does NOT give the questions that are being answered. If one is familiar with these texts in their own right, they will be able to speak to the “Bible Christians” in their “own language” so to speak … notwithstanding that “Sola Scriptura” (scripture alone) does not supercede the power of the teaching office of the Church which Christ Himself commissioned before the New Testament was even begun (as written scripture anyway).

At its worst “Dialogue” can be “diabolical” if one is willing to accept all that is not of the Church and compromise anything that is – in the interest of reaching a compromise (especially in the areas of those things which must never BE compromised).

To represent Catholicism in a dialogue well - one must believe in it (and ultimately in Jesus Christ) and be able to explain the faith with the help of the Holy Spirit. Also to
sincerely want the best for the person one is “dialoguing” with. Which would be for them to go to heaven later … but receive more fully the “good news” now!

discovercatholicism.org/resources/The%20Catholic%20Apologist%E2%80%99s%20Scriptural%20Cheat%20Sheet.pdf < a good beginning place to seek those answers for questions that Catholics often get asked. Once one has an answer (or more information anyway) it is good to think about how best to give that answer in Charity (rather than in competition … no matter how uncharitably the question may have been hurled at you. )

 

[Brendan_64]

I believe the danger in dialogue is that all Christian faiths are viewed as equal. The end game of any conversation MUST be to bring everyone to the One true Faith…not to win an argument but to possibly save souls.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

And do you sit down and say to the others “We will enter into dialogue with you, but only on the basis that we are superior to you”? I’m not sure how much dialogue you’d get on that basis.

Of course we don’t think that all parties in the dialogue are equal, but then again neither do they. The Church does not enter into dialogue on the understanding that the faiths of the others are equal to their’s. But then again neither do the other faiths enter into the dialogue believing that. All parties, by their very nature believe that their faiths and their positions are superior. In that view we are equal.

What do you want our Church to do? Do you want the Church to insist that all other parties accept the superiority of our Church before entering dialogue? That isn’t a dialogue, that’s entering into negotiations for the conditional surrender of the other party.

It doesn’t work like that. Dialogue is a discussion into which all parties enter equally, but with each party being free to believe that its position is superior. You can’t have a proper dialogue expecting the other party to accept the superiority of your position before the dialogue begins.

 

[CutlerB]

And do you sit down and say to the others “We will enter into dialogue with you, but only on the basis that we are superior to you”? I’m not sure how much dialogue you’d get on that basis.

Of course we don’t think that all parties in the dialogue are equal, but then again neither do they. The Church does not enter into dialogue on the understanding that the faiths of the others are equal to their’s. But then again neither do the other faiths enter into the dialogue believing that. All parties, by their very nature believe that their faiths and their positions are superior. In that view we are equal.

What do you want our Church to do? Do you want the Church to insist that all other parties accept the superiority of our Church before entering dialogue? That isn’t a dialogue, that’s entering into negotiations for the conditional surrender of the other party.

It doesn’t work like that. Dialogue is a discussion into which all parties enter equally, but with each party being free to believe that its position is superior. You can’t have a proper dialogue expecting the other party to accept the superiority of your position before the dialogue begins.

Heavens, he isn’t saying you should tell the other party “We’re better than you and we’re the Truth.”

He is saying that the Church’s internal attitude and aim should, in his opinion, be what he was writing about.

 

[LisaA]

Those events may have been missed by you, but they weren’t missed by my mother-in-law who was burned out of her home in the 1970’s by a Protestant mob (because she was a Catholic). That was a pretty common occurrence back then. Just ten years ago the Catholic Church in the town I grew up in was set on fire by Protestants. Then there is the cases of some Protestants trying to get hold of consecrated hosts by pretending to be Catholic in order to publicly desecrate them. That’s Northern Ireland for you. Mind you it also happens in Scotland (to a lesser extent). Certain parties in Northern Ireland aren’t exactly big on inter-faith dialogue it would seem.

However I was really referring to events further back in time. Go back only a few hundred years and burning of heretics was the norm. Thankfully we talk to each other these days. That in itself is progress.

OK that was what I would consider isolated and more of a political than religious struggle. I remember the Irish issues. Butr again, it wasn’t ‘back a few years’ but almost forty years ago and it was basically isolated to Northern Ireland, not a worldwide phenomenon until you go back millenia.

What happened four hundred years ago is IRRELEVANT other than as a lesson. Don’t conflate ancient history with current attempts at interfaith dialogue which I believe is the subject of the thread.

Lisa

 

[concretecamper]

And do you sit down and say to the others “We will enter into dialogue with you, but only on the basis that we are superior to you”? I’m not sure how much dialogue you’d get on that basis.

Of course we don’t think that all parties in the dialogue are equal, but then again neither do they. The Church does not enter into dialogue on the understanding that the faiths of the others are equal to their’s. But then again neither do the other faiths enter into the dialogue believing that. All parties, by their very nature believe that their faiths and their positions are superior. In that view we are equal.

What do you want our Church to do? Do you want the Church to insist that all other parties accept the superiority of our Church before entering dialogue? That isn’t a dialogue, that’s entering into negotiations for the conditional surrender of the other party.

It doesn’t work like that. Dialogue is a discussion into which all parties enter equally, but with each party being free to believe that its position is superior. You can’t have a proper dialogue expecting the other party to accept the superiority of your position before the dialogue begins.

Wow…I made two simple objective statements…I didn’t realize those statement contained what you read.

 

[Brendan_64]

OK that was what I would consider isolated and more of a political than religious struggle. I remember the Irish issues. But again, it wasn’t ‘back a few years’ but almost forty years ago and it was basically isolated to Northern Ireland, not a worldwide phenomenon until you go back millenia.

It wasn’t just. It kicked off properly in 1972 and went on full pelt well into the 1990’s. And they are still at it today. Don’t believe the propaganda that all is peaceful now. My own home Church was targetted 10 years ago with a fire started in part of the church that burned down a chaplet. And people are still being attacked and killed in Northern Ireland because of their religion today. The ‘peace walls’ still exist to keep both sides from killing one another. On the 12th of July this year a statue of the Virgin Mary was retrieved from pride of place on a Protestant bonfire; how is that not an act of religious hatred?

You reckon it all stopped 40 years ago? 40 years ago it had only just started, and it hasn’t stopped yet. Don’t tell me when the violence stopped in Northern Ireland, I lived through it, I lost family because of it, and it IS still going on (despite what the media might want you to believe today).

What happened four hundred years ago is IRRELEVANT other than as a lesson. Don’t conflate ancient history with current attempts at interfaith dialogue which I believe is the subject of the thread.

You seem to view things in a purely modern time-frame, as if all that is relevant is what has happened in the past few decades. Human nature hasn’t changed, we are still just a hair’s breadth away from killing each other because of our differences. Dialogue is a valuable tool to enable us to understand each other and bring us closer together. As Christians this is of particular importance.

And for your information, 400 years ago isn’t “Ancient history”. 400 years ago isn’t actually that long ago in historical terms. It’s not that long ago in terms of the history of our Church either.

 

[GEddie]

And for your information, 400 years ago isn’t “Ancient history”. 400 years ago isn’t actually that long ago in historical terms. It’s not that long ago in terms of the history of our Church either.

Indeed it’s not. But we in NA are relatively nearsighted in time.

After all, only 7 generations ago, folks here were killing each other over political issues; today the circle has closed over so well that that conflict, so hideous at the time, has become a tourist attraction.

Most of us have no reference for the centennial conflicts elsewhere.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Brendan_64]

After all, only 7 generations ago, folks here were killing each other over political issues; today the circle has closed over so well that that conflict, so hideous at the time, has become a tourist attraction.

If you mean the American Civil War, that was only 4 or 5 generations ago (not far off living memory really ).

 

[EvangelCatholic]

To not dialogue means no evangelism and so contrary to the Church’s mission. Remember St Francis of Assisi in 1219, went to Egypt in an attempt to convert the Sultan to put an end to the conflict of the Crusades.

 

[concretecamper]

isn’t dialogue as the OP meant it and evangelization different?

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

 

[PJM]

=concretecamper;11007641]isn’t dialogue as the OP meant it and evangelization different?

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

THAT IS ALSO MY IMPRESSION

IT DEALS WITH LDS ALTERATION OF HISTORICAL CHRISTIANITY FOR THERE OWN AGENDA GOALS. [If I understand it correctly?]

 

[GEddie]

If you mean the American Civil War, that was only 4 or 5 generations ago (not far off living memory really ).

OK, depending how you define generation; to me, it’s the time for a kid to grow up and start having kids (roughly 20 years).

It’s well off living memory, in that no-one alive today however old is likely to have known anybody from that time anymore.

ICXC NIKA

 

[concretecamper]

A generation is 20-25 years depending on who you talk to.