Pope explains why he is going to Assisi-III

[passer_by]

I think that you have hit the nail on the head right here. This is an approach that the Holy See has warned about as being very delicate, like brain surgery. Many Catholics want the Catholic Church to tell Islam what is wrong with it. I call it a hardsell.

What the Church prefers to do is to establish a dialogue around what we have in common build from there. At some point, you have to reach the things we don’t have in common. At that point, hopefully, you have built a rapport that allows both sides to listen to each other with trust.

I keep calling it the Franciscan method because they were the first to use it, but it’s really the Church’s method, because they Franciscans sold it to the Church and she has made it universal.

The foundation of having a relationship is certainly good. People are more open to friends discussing matters than strangers.

I just got the impression that the church just wants to abandon all efforts at conversion and just try to get along.

Like the Franciscan priests who are in custody of the Holy Land. They have a good relationship. But I have not heard that they have switched toward identifying the error in Islam or presenting a case to the Muslim Imams over there on why become Christian. After all around 700 years of living among them, the routine is still to respect them and even help them learn their own religion well.

In the mean time, the Muslims over there still do have extremist views as I understand.

I have never been in Pakistan. From what I understand, there is not much of a presence of Catholic missionaries there. Am I correct?

There is almost none that I know of. To be fair, if someone was ever caught and even suspected of trying to do missionary work, the penalties would be horrendous.

So I can understand the church not wanting to send missionaries to Pakistan. But it doesn’t even try to explain its gospel within Catholic countries to Muslims. From what I have read, there is no effort even in Catholic countries where Muslims have migrated to convert them. Instead there are prayer sessions together and support. I have heard of non-Catholic missionaries trying to convert Muslims but never heard of Catholic missionaries attempting it even within the confines of Catholic countries.

Amidst all these, when the church gets together with Muslims and pray, though the intentions are very good, the message sent is that they are doing what is right too.

So for us, it looks like the church doesn’t even want to convert anymore.

Which is still OK and something most can live with. But what do you do when the other religious party wants to convert or get rid of all non-muslims with a religious conviction?

 

[TrueLight]

Here is a link to answers to some of these questions. WARNING; Some of it is deliberately very technical. Don’t ask me why, because I don’t know the answer.

monasticdialog.com/a.php?id=555

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thanks for the links, Br. Jay.

 

[G_Inquisitor]

There’s only the One. When we pray, each of us with our individual conceptions of what God IS, we are all not praying to the “real” God. But of course, we all, no matter who we are, must be praying to the real God, because there’s only One God to be prayed to.

I have a question for you about the following story from 3 Kings, chapter 18.

[16] Abdias therefore went to meet Achab, and told him: and Achab came to meet Elias. [17] And when he had seen him, he said: Art thou he that troublest Israel? [18] And he said: I have not troubled Israel, but thou and thy father’s house, who have forsaken the commandments of the Lord, and have followed Baalim. [19] Nevertheless send now, and gather unto me all Israel, unto mount Carmel, and the prophets of Baal four hundred and fifty, and the prophets of the groves four hundred, who eat at Jezabel’s table. [20] Achab sent to all the children of Israel, and gathered together the prophets unto mount Carmel.

[21] And Elias coming to all the people, said: How long do you halt between two sides? if the Lord be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people did not answer him a word. [22] And Elias said again to the people: I only remain a prophet of the Lord: but the prophets of Baal are four hundred and fifty men. [23] Let two bullocks be given us, and let them choose one bullock for themselves, and cut it in pieces and lay it upon wood, but put no fire under: and I will dress the other bullock, and lay it on wood, and put no fire under it. [24] Call ye on the names of your gods, and I will call on the name of my Lord: and the God that shall answer by fire, let him be God. And all the people answering said: A very good proposal. [25] Then Elias said to the prophets of Baal: Choose you one bullock and dress it first, because you are many: and call on the names of your gods, but put no fire under.

In the above story, was Baal the one true God? And were those who worshipped Baal worshipping the same God as the Israelites?

 

[Julia_Mae]

I have a question for you about the following story from 3 Kings, chapter 18.

I think you’ll have to start a thread because the mod wants us to stick closer to the OP.

 

[passer_by]

What should we do, as a Church, in the person of our Pope, in terms of ecumenical gatherings? If the intent of the gathering is to **seek **the good, to seek peace, brotherhood, understanding, then all are seeking God, the One.

Just to better understand what you are stating, are you saying that everyone who participates representing their religion at Assissi are ‘seeking’?

Because I don’t think that is true.

I think what throws off people is the fact that there is no requirement for ‘seeking’ understanding, truth or good in the event of Assissi. All they do is come together and pray. In fact, the main goal seems to be to come together and pray to peacefully co-exist. So the truth is not as important at this event. This is why there is no attempt to discuss any specific theology or philosophy.

The more I understand this issue, I feel that in a strict sense, Assissi would really be a diplomatic meeting rather than an ecumenical meeting. The same thing happens when the United Nations meet. So this is just a way for us to try and become friends or get a line of communication going.

I think many people get thrown off when Assissi is portrayed as an ecumenical event. Because then it becomes problematic. There is an emphasis of common ground not as a foundation for dialogue to present the truth, but to leave things peacefully as they are. Then it does look like a step toward modernism and the church has no intent to convert.

So Assissi needs to be understood for what it is. It is a diplomatic event. The church still does want to convert them but that is for strictly ecumenical events. Assissi is to get a bit of diplomacy going.

Would that be a correct way of thinking?

 

[passer_by]

WARNING; Some of it is deliberately very technical. Don’t ask me why, because I don’t know the answer.

monasticdialog.com/a.php?id=555

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I have to ask, what exactly is the goal of the church today? Do we want to one day see all of these different religious under Catholicism? Or do we want them to be Buddhists forever?

Because as technically sound as Crossing The Threshold of Hope by Bl. John Paul II is, it does not tell a Budhist or a Muslim why he should convert. It merely states what they already know about their religions (but in English terms).

This is what worries me.

If I was a Muslim, the reason I would convert is IF & ONLY IF someone could tell me why my religion is false OR Christianity is true (then Islam is automatically proven false). I would not convert because Christianity simply sounds good, or appeals to my heart.

But such an effort is missing on the part of the church or I honestly have not seen or heard of it. I can see that this has to be at a personal level but I have heard of priests and Bishops in the West that discourage even such attempts.

This confuses me even more.

 

[Irish_Polock]

So Assissi needs to be understood for what it is. It is a diplomatic event. The church still does want to convert them but that is for strictly ecumenical events. Assissi is to get a bit of diplomacy going.

Would that be a correct way of thinking?

I support this opinion. Let us not be disingenuous about Assisi, and “truth will out”.

 

[TrueLight]

If I was a Muslim, the reason I would convert is IF & ONLY IF someone could tell me why my religion is false OR Christianity is true (then Islam is automatically proven false). I would not convert because Christianity simply sounds good, or appeals to my heart.

Exactly. So in my example of the Protestant church which lets the Muslims next door use the small chapel for larger meetings, all they know is that the Church is cool. Now it so happens that the Church is a “You’re okay, I’m okay” church, so that works for them.

I would hope that Assisi does not give that same impression.

 

[JReducation]

The foundation of having a relationship is certainly good. People are more open to friends discussing matters than strangers.

I just got the impression that the church just wants to abandon all efforts at conversion and just try to get along.

Like the Franciscan priests who are in custody of the Holy Land. They have a good relationship. But I have not heard that they have switched toward identifying the error in Islam or presenting a case to the Muslim Imams over there on why become Christian.

The friars are not supposed to do it that way. Francis does not allow for this. That is not the mission of the Franciscan family. Our mission is to live the Gospel in poverty and unquestioning obedience to the Holy Father and to Francis. We convert others through our humility, charity, life of prayer and penance. We convert by our presence in the lives of others. We convert by serving the needs of the poor and living among them. We teach the rightness and wrongness of different faiths by answering questions of those who come to us and those who invite us to come to them. It is not our mission to go out and campaign to the Imans or the Rabbis. That would be gravely disobedient to the vision of our founder and the mission that Christ and the Church gave to the Franciscan family.

You’d be surprised how many people have converted over the centuries during the last 800 years. Evangelization does not have to be visible to be effective. Evangelization has to take a form that works for the person who is at the receiving end. Franciscans have always been known for opposing all forms of proselytism, even in Europe and the Americas. We have always raised great preachers to convert Catholics to Catholicism. But our approach to non-Catholics has always been through presence and poverty.

There is almost none that I know of. To be fair, if someone was ever caught and even suspected of trying to do missionary work, the penalties would be horrendous.

That certainly creates a difficult situation. You and I will never know how many missionaries there may be who are underground. It’s better not to know.

. From what I have read, there is no effort even in Catholic countries where Muslims have migrated to convert them.

The Church is very prudent, my friend. She knows that such a campaign would not be fruitful. In fact, it can backfire. We have seen it with the Protestants. They have used this overt and at times very confrontational approach with Muslims and Jews and it has not earned them respect or trust. Without trust there can be no dialogue.

The goal of the Church is to build trust and dialogue. From there, the discussion can expand into differences.

Amidst all these, when the church gets together with Muslims and pray, though the intentions are very good, the message sent is that they are doing what is right too.

There is some of this to it. We do want to encourage people to pray, whether they’re Muslims, Jews or Christians.

So for us, it looks like the church doesn’t even want to convert anymore.

I think the problem here is that many people believe that conversioins are through preaching and confrontation. This only works for converting Christians back to Christianity. Christians are willilng to listen. Non-Christians usually resent this approach. However, when they ask the questions and you take the time to answer, then you have a good chance at conversion. In Ad Gentes (ch 24) the Church says that the missionary must be willing to stay at his post as long as it takes and let go and give up everything and everyone he left behind and embracing radical poverty for the sake of the Gospel. That poverty sets the missionary free for being a witness to the Gospel. It preaches to others while saying very little.

Don’t think that because you don’t see or know of organized campaigns there is no evangelization taking place. Those sisters like Mother Teresa’s Missionaries of Charity preach more and better than any preacher on a Sunday.

I was just hearing a rather interesting report tonight. Fr. Mitch Pacwa was quoting a report that stunned me, but should not have. It seems that the shortage of priests that we have in the USA is being balanced out on the other side by an increase of religious brothers who are going to the missions at a steady pace and rate. The sign of evangelization is that brothers’ novitiates in the developing nations and in Israel are on the rise. New religious communities of native people are being founded every couple of years. The Franciscans in Israel ordain one or two men a year. But they profess over 25 per year, meaning that over 25 men make solemn vows every year in that custody and they are sent to other Middle Eastern countries and as missionaries to the USA.

Which is still OK and something most can live with. But what do you do when the other religious party wants to convert or get rid of all non-muslims with a religious conviction?

This is tough question for which there are no simple answers. I wish I had a magical answer. I regret that I do not.

 

[JReducation]

I would hope that Assisi does not give that same impression.

Assiis is not meant to evangelize or to convert. The Holy See engages in different activities for different purposes. The hope here is to move religious leaders to trust each other, to respect each other and to come together with the same desire for peace. Hopefully, these men and women will go back to their people and move them in the direction of peace. The Holy Father grew up under repressive regimes. He knows that you cannot trust government or the military to encourage peaceful coexistence.

Bishop Fulton Sheen did a great deal of work among non Christians. He was a great friend of Dr. Schuller, Dr. Graham, the Dali Lama and a few other religious leaders. He always spoke of the differences between people of faiths as “lover’s quarrels”. He said that unity was not going to be achieved by escalating the quarrel, but by doing things together that that both sides value. This is what the Holy Father is going for, to bring people together on a point that is of value to all.

The Church has not given up her mission to proclaim the Gospel. But she knows how to do it. One has to understand his audience. St. Francis Xavier realized this upon his first failure in Asia. He wrote back to the Jesuits in Spain of the importance of becoming Asian before they came to Asia, because if they came to Asia as European Catholics, they were going to fail. When he returned to India, he took a very Indian approach and was much more successful than he was on his first visit there. In fact, he tried to preach on his first visit and finally gave up and left in disgust. It was later that he realized that the fault was his own, because he was thinking like a European Catholic as if he were talking to other European Catholics trying to convert them back to their faith.

I think this is what has made the friars in the Middle East and the Missionaries of Charity so successful. They think and talk like the people there. They approach them as one of their own. They live and work alongside them as one of them. This opens the doors for questions and dialogue.

Let us never understimate the power of grace that comes through presence and charity.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Because as technically sound as Crossing The Threshold of Hope by Bl. John Paul II is, it does not tell a Budhist or a Muslim why he should convert. It merely states what they already know about their religions (but in English terms).
.

Have you read the entire work? Do you understand it?

What the Holy Father lays out is the strengths and weaknesses of each of these faiths. For those who are intelligent and are reading it, there is no need to wag the finger at them.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Let us never understimate the power of grace that comes through presence and charity.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Br. Jay-
All I have to say to this is

This is a wonderful little gem of wisdom, for any situation!!

Can I quote you in my signature?

 

[Julia_Mae]

Just to better understand what you are stating, are you saying that everyone who participates representing their religion at Assissi are ‘seeking’?

Can’t imagine why you’d think so, as I said this:
What should we do, as a Church, in the person of our Pope, in terms of ecumenical gatherings? If the intent of the gathering is to seek the good, to seek peace, brotherhood, understanding, then all are seeking God, the One.

So Assissi needs to be understood for what it is. It is a diplomatic event. The church still does want to convert them but that is for strictly ecumenical events. Assissi is to get a bit of diplomacy going.

Would that be a correct way of thinking?

As you answered me, I’ll assume you are asking me. I don’t generally tell people whether their thinking is “correct.” I find it unjustified and far beyond your ability to judge. Also my or anyone’s ability as only God knows what is in the hearts and minds of the participants.

The Pope needs our prayers. That’s the part I know for sure. Our job is to show forth the image of Christ, I know that also. And you need at least 11:1 to draw to an inside straight.

This is our Pope’s business. Our business is to pray God’s will be done and love one another.

 

[passer_by]

The Church has not given up her mission to proclaim the Gospel. But she knows how to do it. One has to understand his audience. St. Francis Xavier realized this upon his first failure in Asia. He wrote back to the Jesuits in Spain of the importance of becoming Asian before they came to Asia, because if they came to Asia as European Catholics, they were going to fail. When he returned to India, he took a very Indian approach and was much more successful than he was on his first visit there. In fact, he tried to preach on his first visit and finally gave up and left in disgust. It was later that he realized that the fault was his own, because he was thinking like a European Catholic as if he were talking to other European Catholics trying to convert them back to their faith.

But what you are saying about St. Francis Xavier is different. He decided to become Asian does not mean he decided to just get along. No one in Goa would believe you. St. Xavier just adopted and paid attention to cultural aspects. That is of course required. If you come and speak in English for an example, we would not listen to you. If you come and talk about Western values like independence, we will not listen to you etc. But those are cultural aspects.

Where exactly are your sources from to say that St. Xavier was unsuccessful the first time? From what I know, he had great success in Goa from the day he landed.

I think you must be a Franciscan. But I find it a bit annoying that you want to present your order and founder as more superior to that of other saints.

We convert by serving the needs of the poor and living among them. We teach the rightness and wrongness of different faiths by answering questions of those who come to us and those who invite us to come to them. It is not our mission to go out and campaign to the Imans or the Rabbis. That would be gravely disobedient to the vision of our founder and the mission that Christ and the Church gave to the Franciscan family.

See, this is even more confusing.

Do you think it right to convert by helping someone during time of need? I happened to have lived in many countries in South Asia and I can tell you that this is something we really look down upon.

It is a major tactic used by Protestant missionaries today. They come and set-up their churches with their money and then they go around giving money to people. In return, they “suggest” them to come and attend their churches. Some of these pastors agree to give them good jobs abroad if they agree to convert etc. Maybe it is usual in the West but for us its an insult to our intelligence. At times they would succeed with young people who given their poor conditions do succumb. In countries like Sri Lanka, they had to pass laws to prevent this kind of conversion. Their parents suffer great deal in seeing their children leave their Catholic faith.

What is the merit of converting to a religion because the follower seems to help you out when you need assistance?

It seems like an emotional ploy which tries to grow in a person a sense of owing to listen to the giver. It might work for Franciscans but it also works for Muslims, Budhists, Hindus and Sales people. So it doesn’t really give valid reason for anyone with an intelligent mind to convert.

I would rather people be honest with us. Give us the facts. You can give us help but not to convert us.

 

[OraLabora]

We convert others through our humility, charity, life of prayer and penance. We convert by our presence in the lives of others. We convert by serving the needs of the poor and living among them. We teach the rightness and wrongness of different faiths by answering questions of those who come to us and those who invite us to come to them. It is not our mission to go out and campaign to the Imans or the Rabbis. That would be gravely disobedient to the vision of our founder and the mission that Christ and the Church gave to the Franciscan family.

This is an important point to emphasize; Benedictines have a very similar approach. Spreading the Gospel does not mean force-feeding the Truth to people of other faiths. It means living the Gospel, and sparking curiosity.

There really are two ways to spread the Gospel, one is positive: live the Gospel, incarnate it into one’s daily life. Let the Gospel speak through our acts, and especially our charity. Or there is the negative way, point out to others what is wrong about them.

The second way rarely works. In fact it can achieve the exact opposite. How will people come to the Truth? When they see for themselves how it works in community life. Spreading the Gospel means getting our own house in order, and working on our own conversion.

And just because other faiths often use the second method of spreading their message, does not mean we have to. As Catholics we are called to a higher level of morality and charity. Two wrongs do not make a right.

 

[TrueLight]

This is an important point to emphasize; Benedictines have a very similar approach. Spreading the Gospel does not mean force-feeding the Truth to people of other faiths. It means living the Gospel, and sparking curiosity.

There really are two ways to spread the Gospel, one is positive: live the Gospel, incarnate it into one’s daily life. Let the Gospel speak through our acts, and especially our charity. Or there is the negative way, point out to others what is wrong about them.

The second way rarely works. In fact it can achieve the exact opposite. How will people come to the Truth? When they see for themselves how it works in community life. Spreading the Gospel means getting our own house in order, and working on our own
And just because other faiths often use the second method of spreading their message, does not mean we have to. As Catholics we are called to a higher level of morality and charity. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Is it really not the Catholic way? Was the Apostolic way only good for those who lived in the Bible days?

I think I’m going to research a book on the Catholic missionaries, including the ones who lost their lives, throughout the ages. If anyone can recommend such a book, I would appreciate it.

 

[Melchior_1]

They way Brother Jr and OraL explain these things, it does make sense that a lot of missionary effort went into starting schools (for the uneducated) and hospitals (for the sick).

 

[Ahimsa]

Because as technically sound as Crossing The Threshold of Hope by Bl. John Paul II is, it does not tell a Budhist…It merely states what they already know about their religions (but in English terms).

Not really. The Pope labeled Buddhism as “atheistic”, and Buddhists worldwide rejected that characterization. So, the Pope wasn’t “merely” stating what Buddhists already know about their religion.

 

[OraLabora]

Is it really not the Catholic way? Was the Apostolic way only good for those who lived in the Bible days?

I think I’m going to research a book on the Catholic missionaries, including the ones who lost their lives, throughout the ages. If anyone can recommend such a book, I would appreciate it.

Everything needs to be looked at in the context of time and place. The Bible speaks of how to treat slaves, but nobody will claim today that slavery is moral. There had been little or no contact with Hinduism in apostolic times; Islam was still 5 or 6 centuries in the future (in fact St. Benedict was born before Muhammad), Protestantism was still 1500 years in the future (though the various heresies that make up some Protestant churches came out much earlier), and the known world was a much smaller place for Middle-Eastern men. Marco Polo’s travels to Asia were still 1300 years in the future, and discovery of the Americas and its natives was also nearly 1500 years away (discounting early Viking expeditions).

Now the world is known in its entirety, and the various faith traditions that developed over the centuries have become well-entrenched. It is these traditions that will gather at Assisi. Even if we do manage to convert every last living soul to Catholicism, this would take centuries if not millennia. Meanwhile we all have to get along peacefully for the greater good. Think of the message Benedict would send by not joining other faith leaders at Assisi.

 

[TrueLight]

Everything needs to be looked at in the context of time and place. The Bible speaks of how to treat slaves, but nobody will claim today that slavery is moral. There had been little or no contact with Hinduism in apostolic times; Islam was still 5 or 6 centuries in the future (in fact St. Benedict was born before Muhammad), Protestantism was still 1500 years in the future (though the various heresies that make up some Protestant churches came out much earlier), and the known world was a much smaller place for Middle-Eastern men. Marco Polo’s travels to Asia were still 1300 years in the future, and discovery of the Americas and its natives was also nearly 1500 years away (discounting early Viking expeditions).

Now the world is known in its entirety, and the various faith traditions that developed over the centuries have become well-entrenched. It is these traditions that will gather at Assisi. Even if we do manage to convert every last living soul to Catholicism, this would take centuries if not millennia. Meanwhile we all have to get along peacefully for the greater good. Think of the message Benedict would send by not joining other faith leaders at Assisi.

Who am I to say what the Holy Father should or should not attend?

All I can do is pray.

We shouldn’t be secluded in Catholic enclaves. We should go out and be with non-Christians in the same way Jesus ate with sinners that others shunned.

However, every opportunity among non-Catholics can be an opportunity to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It can be done in many ways, but I believe it should be clear that we adhere to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, who is not just another prophet, but the Son of the Living God.