Pope's call for interfaith day of prayer provokes debate

[gurneyhalleck1]

Correct, as you usually are on this issue, Jeremy. It is not fair to tell Catholics that this is an infallible edict with which they must concur. Praying with Muslims to the same god is not in my catechism or else I just haven’t found that page yet!

Thank you for your kind words, Reuben.

My journey to Orthodoxy has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I am truly sorry if I have offended you, DavidKays, but I hope that you (and everyone else in this thread) understands that my response was in defense of Catholics who disagree with the Pope. This isn’t some way of stealth proselytizing for Orthodoxy. I’m openly saying I’m not Orthodox. Luckily, that’s not the issue. The issue to me is that when you tell Catholics that they shouldn’t be disagreeing with the Pope when you yourself are not Catholic…well, it rings a bit hollow, doesn’t it? Those who would support the Pope’s position in this matter will thank you for your support, but then what of those who do not? How do you think it feels to be told you should go be a Protestant if you can’t agree with this situation, which is not enshrined in some papal bull or anything to begin with? I do feel that this is very rude. I may not be under the Roman Pope myself anymore, but I won’t just sit here and let anybody malign those who are just for having different opinions on a matter that it is perfectly fine to have different opinions on. That’s ridiculous, and very inconsiderate.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Unless it’s a Gingko tree or a Chinese pistache, those are gorgeous trees! I’m kidding. You’re right, ddarko.

I don’t understand. Lets say a group or a nation has a religion where they worship a tree. Do you think it right to ask them to pray for world peace? What ever happened to the fact that these people are engaged in idolatry?

What about polytheist? Those who love to use occult practices etc? Do you think its still ok?

While I think the Pope’s intentions are nice in a movie, but what he is saying is not consistent and really carries no weight other than an emotional dimension. You can’t just ask people to do their own thing. It automatically implies that those who worship a tree, worship through occult practices for an example are also actually speaking to God

Now I love our Pope but I think this is a bit of a mistake.

God Bless

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

My own Catholicism hangs on the edge of a knife some days I feel so I understand the restless heart and the religious quest all too well. Your sentiments are kind and thoughtful, Reuben, as usual. God bless you!

Noted, though no decision has been made. He has been here for sometimes and frankly I do love reading some of his posts, and especially for the times when we are of the same mind, those posts were extremely appreciated.

I’ll continue keeping him in prayers and that all the best will only be with him.

 

[ddarko]

Yes, mainline Protestants generally - there are exceptions - are not dogmatic when it comes to the Bible. While they find special guidance and inspiration in scripture, I’ve found that they are very tolerant when it comes to diverse interpretations of this or that verse.

I recall discussions with Protestants who had different interpretations of say, "Thou shall not kill." Some thought it meant we had to be conscientious objectors rather than kill enemy soldiers. Yes, we could be medics, but not carry guns. Some tended to go along with the 'just war' theory. Some believed in capital punishment, some did not. Etc. There was no sense of "there is only one Christian position on the subject."

Or, take the meaning of communion. Some had a 'high view' of communion, that the elements had special meaning, that Christ came to us through the elements in some special way. Some felt it was a time to repent of sins and remember the sacrifice and victory of Christ. Some viewed it primarily as a 'family feast' - Christians gathering together at the Lord's Table to express and celebrate their faith. Some never quite embrace communion, somewhat suspicious that it was where Christians could become superstitious if they weren't careful. Etc. 

 And we could go on. I like such an atmosphere where different views were not condemned as heretical, where there was no strict 'party line' that Christians had to follow. We were respected as thinking individuals with the right to form our own opinions. I guess that's where I've ended up after much reflection. The word that sums it up for me is 'freedom' - freedom of thought, of speech, of conviction, even to change one's mind without reproach. I suspect that God honors our attempts, however limited, to understand him and this marvelous, mammoth and mysterious creation.

 God bless all his children and may we learn to live in peace and mutual respect, recognizing that none of us has any monopoly on spiritual truth.

Protestants simply don’t accuse each other of being heretics because how can they be against what the others say. Ironically, ask them about the Catholic Church. They would have a LOT TO condemn

There is one truth. You can have MANY levels of interpretation BUT not contradictory interpretations. All levels MUST be consistent. Also, all interpretation MUST be consistent with Tradition. Since Protestants throw Tradition out of the window, there is nothing really bounding them from ANY interpretation and thus you have the multitude of views. But that in no way means the protestants are correct or going about things the right way.

God Bless

 

[latin_rite]

-Jesus said that because He was God. He said the same to other people at other times. Each time He was God.

Could you explain what you mean by that please.

–God is not the provincial mayor of one religion on one planet in one solar system in one galaxy in one universe. He is part and parcel of every thing, every mind and every form of energy everywhere. We are talking about God, not the president of a club.

Well God is more than mayor. He is God. The one and only God. You live in his kingdom whether you like it or not.

-Within the man Jesus was a thing called the Christ Consciousness or Kutashtha.

Jesus is more than some thing, He is now and was when he walked the earth with the apostles 2,000 odd years ago.

Within every other person is the same thing. The difference? He saw it.

He didn;t just see it. He was it.

When the Christ Consciousness spoke through the man Jesus telling you He was the way the truth and the life, it was likely a call to awaken the Christ Consciousness in yourself.

Well firstly i am sure Jesus was aware of himself. And when he spoke that he was the way the truth and the life. That’s exactly what he meant. That ** HE** was the truth way and light. None else. He said he was the only way to the father and that’s exactly what he meant. There is no other other Gods. Not in me nor anywhere else. I don’t have my own lil mini god waiting inside of me. There is God and nothing else, inside of me. And i had to accept him in. God is no squatter who just barges his way in and demands residence. He is much more elegant and respectful than that.

The way, the truth and the life is within you and all around you. No one comes to realization of the Father or supreme consciousness that pervades all things without awakening it within yourself.

The way the truth the life is indeed inside of me. It has been inside of me since the day i invited Jesus in.

Well, what He meant by church wasn’t spelled out specifically to equal cathedrals, basilicas, councils, hierarchies, ceremonial costumes, rituals and the like. It is true that this is what they came to be, but to be honest with you, well I really can’t see Him being in that picture. It doesn’t fit with the things He did and the way He lived. I couldn’t see Peter in that picture either. Do you honestly think you could get St. Peter to slip on a pair of red Pradas? I just really can’t see that. Do you see that? Neither of those men seemed to have a care in the world about things like clothes, finery, impressive buildings, sophisticated organizational structures, committees, budgets, councils and the like. They were living in the synchronicity of people who had their minds fixed on something bigger, so the simple things they needed just came as they needed them. The priests of the time had all the trappings I mentioned, and who did Jesus cause the biggest fracas with? Those very people. So, I have to wonder what He meant by church.
If you think the organization you belong to is what He meant, then that’s your thing. I will simply always be curious as to how in the world it became something like that. Jesus never carried more than what He needed for the minute. If we had any faith at all, it follows t hat we could be the same. Instead, the institutions that claim to be His churches are encumbered with the ponderous weight of titanic assets and all the ancillary organizational concerns that go with it. I think it would be hard to walk with and keep pace with Jesus carrying all that. I think the man would have nothing to do with it.
Your friend
Sufjon

And what trappings do Catholic priest enjoy? What high life does the pope live? You have a problem that the Church has become rich and powerful? The Church helps many with its limited wealth. It’s servants the pope and it’s priest have not. Is today’s church what Jesus and Peter had in mind when they started their Church? Well with its current leader looking to pray with pagans, i would probably say no. Especially when God and Jesus said that we were to do no such thing. You think that Jesus is just some wishy washy feeling inside of us. I know he is God. Jesus was more than just some wise teacher who had a Epiphany. He was God.
And he was more than a man. He told us as the son and told us as the father, That we are not to pray with pagans, full-stop. There were no ifs or butts about it. He turned his back on more blessed men than i for doing such things. Men more holy than i have felt Gods punishment for worshipping with pagans. The pope can throw his pearls before swine if he wants. I’ll keep mine for who it’s intended for.
I

 

[Reuben_J]

Well, what He meant by church wasn’t spelled out specifically to equal cathedrals, basilicas, councils, hierarchies, ceremonial costumes, rituals and the like. It is true that this is what they came to be, but to be honest with you, well I really can’t see Him being in that picture. It doesn’t fit with the things He did and the way He lived. I couldn’t see Peter in that picture either. Do you honestly think you could get St. Peter to slip on a pair of red Pradas? I just really can’t see that. Do you see that? Neither of those men seemed to have a care in the world about things like clothes, finery, impressive buildings, sophisticated organizational structures, committees, budgets, councils and the like. They were living in the synchronicity of people who had their minds fixed on something bigger, so the simple things they needed just came as they needed them. The priests of the time had all the trappings I mentioned, and who did Jesus cause the biggest fracas with? Those very people. So, I have to wonder what He meant by church.
If you think the organization you belong to is what He meant, then that’s your thing. I will simply always be curious as to how in the world it became something like that. Jesus never carried more than what He needed for the minute. If we had any faith at all, it follows t hat we could be the same. Instead, the institutions that claim to be His churches are encumbered with the ponderous weight of titanic assets and all the ancillary organizational concerns that go with it. I think it would be hard to walk with and keep pace with Jesus carrying all that. I think the man would have nothing to do with it.

Your friend
Sufjon

Maybe to get thing straight in simple language – the Church is of course not the buildings or even the organization per se though the latter is close.

The Church is what it is now because it has about 1.5 billion members which is a far cry from what it was during the time of Jesus himself that perhaps consisted of handful of followers around the area of Capernaum in Galilee. The organization of the Church during Jesus time would quite certainly not work today especially since the call is to establish the Church throughout the world earth.

Yes, the Church that we can see today is what Jesus would want and he had spelt out all the criteria for it. Jesus left an infant Church – she has to grow in due time but maintain the basic ingredient of the human infant. And as a father feeds the infant child to adulthood and so was Jesus feeding his Church to what it is today.

God bless.

 

[Reuben_J]

gurneyhalleck1:

My own Catholicism hangs on the edge of a knife some days I feel so I understand the restless heart and the religious quest all too well. Your sentiments are kind and thoughtful, Reuben, as usual. God bless you!

That’s understandable GH and from my view considering your background in both Anglican and Catholic. Ultimately the proverbial treasure is where our heart is. My honest opinion is for one to make a decision and to stick with it though it may not be as easy said and done; and much of it depends on our background and the state of our mind. I can only say that you may find the strength and the faith (which comes from God) to go through and persevere with your own belief. I only could be with you in prayers towards that end.

God bless you too.

 

[Reuben_J]

dzheremi:

Thank you for your kind words, Reuben.

My journey to Orthodoxy has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I am truly sorry if I have offended you, DavidKays, but I hope that you (and everyone else in this thread) understands that my response was in defense of Catholics who disagree with the Pope. This isn’t some way of stealth proselytizing for Orthodoxy. I’m openly saying I’m not Orthodox. Luckily, that’s not the issue. The issue to me is that when you tell Catholics that they shouldn’t be disagreeing with the Pope when you yourself are not Catholic…well, it rings a bit hollow, doesn’t it? Those who would support the Pope’s position in this matter will thank you for your support, but then what of those who do not? How do you think it feels to be told you should go be a Protestant if you can’t agree with this situation, which is not enshrined in some papal bull or anything to begin with? I do feel that this is very rude. I may not be under the Roman Pope myself anymore, but I won’t just sit here and let anybody malign those who are just for having different opinions on a matter that it is perfectly fine to have different opinions on. That’s ridiculous, and very inconsiderate.

I thought your stance on this is quite reasonable and it falls along the line that we can disagree with the Pope on what he does in his personal capacity though I have to admit as Catholics we are rather limited in exercising that disagreement. Of course as non-Catholics one is not oblige to do anything and therefore granted the freedom of expressing one’s opinion on the subject. The Pope is a public figure and no one is completely unaffected by the thing he does; that’s why non-Catholics do very often are involved in talking about what the Pope does.

As for proselytizing, by the fact that we come out proclaiming our religion or sympathy, that by itself is already some kind of proselytizing and we all are guilty of it one way or the other. But that’s not what the Forum means, so I guess, not to worry about it. The positive of all this is that the bottom line is we usually come out stronger in our own belief simply because the least we can to it to think. I had already made up my mind a long time ago that nobody probably will get converted on the basis of internet forum. Conversion is as a result of something more tangible than that – both personal experience and learning, and these we cannot get totally in the internet.

God bless.

 

[Sufjon]

The pope can throw his pearls before swine if he wants. I’ll keep mine for who it’s intended for.
I

I’m not sure who you are saving your peals for, but you have already shared some true pearls with me. I have decided that you and I can end our discussion with this quote from you (above), which is indeed a true spiritual pearl, and the fourth time on this thread you have used inuendo to toss derogatory names at people of faiths other than yours. It is pointless to continue this discussion, because I can see where your heart is, and it is not a place into which I care to venture any further.

Still your friend whether you like it or not,
Sufjon

 

[Sufjon]

Yes, the Church that we can see today is what Jesus would want and he had spelt out all the criteria for it. Jesus left an infant Church – she has to grow in due time but maintain the basic ingredient of the human infant. And as a father feeds the infant child to adulthood and so was Jesus feeding his Church to what it is today.

God bless.

Hi Reuben: I’m not saying you are right or wrong, but could you explain where Jesus spelled the particulars that prescribe the churches we find ourselves with nowadays? I am just wondering what your thoughts on that are. I do not belong to any church, so I am not taking sides for any particular one. I do not see any churches that I find to be particularly bad or worse than any secular institution, but I don’t personally see that model prescribed by Jesus either.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Reuben_J]

Hi Reuben: I’m not saying you are right or wrong, but could you explain where Jesus spelled the particulars that prescribe the churches we find ourselves with nowadays? I am just wondering what your thoughts on that are. I do not belong to any church, so I am not taking sides for any particular one. I do not see any churches that I find to be particularly bad or worse than any secular institution, but I don’t personally see that model prescribed by Jesus either.

Your friend
Sufjon

Thanks Sufjon for giving me an opportunity to explain this. I’ll be brief and sweet, and probably there are other Catholics who can fill in the details that may help you.

As I said, Jesus left an infant Church – just a handful of believers and many of them were to be found in Jerusalem right after his death. These were the Galilean bunch – they were originally from that district where Jesus resided with his parents.

It would be impossible for that Church to grow and spread to the ‘end of the earth’ with millions upon millions of believers of different tribes and colors. Without a system to ensure consistency, much of the original belief that was handed to the apostles would surely be fragmented and lost.

The idea of the Church is one that is founded by Jesus who will be with her till the end of time. How would Jesus be with the Church after his death? This he said he would send the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit did come. With the Holy Spirit it was if Jesus is still with the Church in his person, the Holy Spirit being the third person in the Triune God.

How that will be done, much of it is found in Mt 16 – that he will build his Church on Peter the rock. He gave the key to him to bind and to loose. And he promise this Church would not be overcome by the forces that would be against it – the Gate of Hell will not prevail against it.
In a nutshell, Christianity is a religion based on the witnesses of the apostles. Jesus handed his teaching to the apostles and the apostles build the Church with the teaching and the tangible presence of Jesus through the Holy Spirit.

So it is all spelt by Jesus himself how the Church is going to be built and what it will be like.

Hope that helps.

God bless.

Reuben

edit:
p/s:

If you are looking for the Church exactly during the time of Jesus, you would not find it. Probably there was not even a church back then. We understood the mission of Jesus as finished on the cross but it is not completed in the sense that his followers have to take over from there to bring this news, which is called the Good News, to all the earth.

You are free to disagree with us but we are very happy if that disagreement is based on what we believe.

 

[Sufjon]

If you are looking for the Church exactly during the time of Jesus, you would not find it. Probably there was not even a church back then. We understood the mission of Jesus as finished on the cross but it is not completed in the sense that his followers have to take over from there to bring this news, which is called the Good News, to all the earth.

You are free to disagree with us but we are very happy if that disagreement is based on what we believe.

Hi Reuben: I don’t disagree with you. I only wanted to know what your opinion was. What you said sounds quite reasonable to me. It sounds like you are saying that the church could have taken on any number of permutations over time, but any number of them could be acceptable. That makes sense to me. What I have been curious about is the idea that a number of people seem to have that suggests that there was a precise institution prescribed at the time. What you have said makes more sense than that.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Rascalking]

I’m curious why this is controversial. Would it really kill anyone to pray with someone who ::gasp:: might be a different religion?

 

[Roy5]

Protestants simply don’t accuse each other of being heretics because how can they be against what the others say. Ironically, ask them about the Catholic Church. They would have a LOT TO condemn

There is one truth. You can have MANY levels of interpretation BUT not contradictory interpretations. All levels MUST be consistent. Also, all interpretation MUST be consistent with Tradition. Since Protestants throw Tradition out of the window, there is nothing really bounding them from ANY interpretation and thus you have the multitude of views. But that in no way means the protestants are correct or going about things the right way.

God Bless

My experience is that Protestants I know - mainline Protestants - disagree with Catholicism on various matters, but they have the attitude 'let's agree to disagree' but work together wherever and whenever we can. They are not strongly theological. They are inclined to look upon most other religions - including Buddhism etc - as ;different strokes for different strokes'.  Thus, Protestants in this community work closely together with Catholics on the soup kitchen, homeless shelter and much more. 

Where I find considerable animosity is here on CAF where so often bitterness against Protestantism is expressed. The major difference I have found is that traditional Catholics insist that their religion is the only one, true, apostolic form of Christianity while Protestants are inclined to think - fine, if you can believe it, go ahead, but I cannot honestly accept many of the doctrines and other claims of Catholicism. Then, again, they would add. I don't claim that my church is the true church. Christianity, many would add, should be big enough to permit a variety of opinions.

 Now, what prejudice you may find among Protestants against Catholicism tends to be among evangelicals. They are more committed to specific doctrines and might argue vociferously against, for example, the Immaculate Conception or transubstantiation. They are rather like traditionalist Catholics in that they, too, claim to be members of the one true, apostolic faith. On the other hand, they are more likely to agree with the Catholic position in such areas as gay rights and 'no abortion under any circumstances'. They also tolerate many of the differences among Protestants as long as they are 'born again'/ Billy Graham represented that viewpoint. 

God bless people of every creed, color, country and culture. Mau religion serve as a bridge rather than as a barrier.

 

[Reuben_J]

Hi Reuben: I don’t disagree with you. I only wanted to know what your opinion was. What you said sounds quite reasonable to me. It sounds like you are saying that the church could have taken on any number of permutations over time, but any number of them could be acceptable. That makes sense to me. What I have been curious about is the idea that a number of people seem to have that suggests that there was a precise institution prescribed at the time. What you have said makes more sense than that.

Your friend
Sufjon

Hi. Thanks for your understanding. This needs a bit of clarification unless I misunderstand what you said.

I am not saying that the Church ‘could have taken on any number of permutations over time’, if you mean that there are number of possibilities that the face of the Church could be. No, certainly not. What I meant was that the institution of the Church certainly had not taken place at the time of Jesus though all the ‘ingredients’ were there for the Church to finally evolve to what she should be. This should follow logically that there would be only one Church with only one character. I seem to be introducing words to this explanation but what I am trying to say is that there could not be other way that the Church would be other than what she is today.

In that sense posters who said that ‘there was a precise institution prescribed at the time’ were right except that that institution at the time of Jesus had not fully materialized as we know her today. Well, it takes time to build buildings (the Church as explained is not the buildings) and to put rules and documents in place though there was nothing new in those rules and document as they were all based on the apostolic teachings and traditions.

God bless.

 

[Sufjon]

Hi. Thanks for your understanding. This needs a bit of clarification unless I misunderstand what you said.

I am not saying that the Church ‘could have taken on any number of permutations over time’, if you mean that there are number of possibilities that the face of the Church could be. No, certainly not. What I meant was that the institution of the Church certainly had not taken place at the time of Jesus though all the ‘ingredients’ were there for the Church to finally evolve to what she should be. This should follow logically that there would be only one Church with only one character. I seem to be introducing words to this explanation but what I am trying to say is that there could not be other way that the Church would be other than what she is today.

In that sense posters who said that ‘there was a precise institution prescribed at the time’ were right except that that institution at the time of Jesus had not fully materialized as we know her today. Well, it takes time to build buildings (the Church as explained is not the buildings) and to put rules and documents in place though there was nothing new in those rules and document as they were all based on the apostolic teachings and traditions.

God bless.

Hi Reuben: Got it - thanks for the clarification. So, to drill down on that a bit, would you go so far as to say that the Catholic church is the only way it was supposed to turn out, or would that extend in your view to the broader umbrella of Christianity, to include all or some of the various denominations that have developed?

Your friend,
Sufjon

 

[Reuben_J]

Hi Reuben: Got it - thanks for the clarification. So, to drill down on that a bit, would you go so far as to say that the Catholic church is the only way it was supposed to turn out, or would that extend in your view to the broader umbrella of Christianity, to include all or some of the various denominations that have developed?

Your friend,
Sufjon

You will get my standard reply on this notwithstanding there are many separated brethren here whom I respect.

The answer is yes (to the former), but that’s because I am Catholic.

And that would not extend to the broader umbrella of Christianity, as you put it. Our stance is that they are separated brethren and we always are looking forwards to the day when we can be one again.

May God bless you.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Yes, it would! It kills our souls when we “pray” with someone who worships a different god who is false or a distortion of our God. Do you think God would have been ok with Elijah praying with the priests of Baal or with the Philistines to Dagan or the Canaanites to Ashtoroth, Astarte, etc.? Think of what the “god” of the Northern Kingdom of Israel was—a mixture of the true God of Moses/Abraham mixed with the Assyrian gods into an abomination. Would that have been a god worthy of prayer along with Yaweah?

There is a reason this is controversial and it’s plain as day where many of us are coming from…working side by side with those of other religions to feed the poor, clothe the hungry, fight against abortion and gay “marriage,” etc. is one thing, actually praying with them acknowledging legitimacy to their god is another entirely.

I’m curious why this is controversial. Would it really kill anyone to pray with someone who ::gasp:: might be a different religion?

 

[JeanMichel]

I don’t understand. Lets say a group or a nation has a religion where they worship a tree. Do you think it right to ask them to pray for world peace? What ever happened to the fact that these people are engaged in idolatry?

What about polytheist? Those who love to use occult practices etc? Do you think its still ok?

While I think the Pope’s intentions are nice in a movie, but what he is saying is not consistent and really carries no weight other than an emotional dimension. You can’t just ask people to do their own thing. It automatically implies that those who worship a tree, worship through occult practices for an example are also actually speaking to God

Now I love our Pope but I think this is a bit of a mistake.

God Bless

Hypothetical are nice for philosophy, but we are taking about reality at the moment. Have you ever met any group of people that worshiped a tree? How many occultists do you know that would respond to an invitation from the Pope? Even how many occultists do you know? You have created Bogey men and beat your chests with the fallacy of the Pope, but over what exactly? Your imagination that you might, God forbid, stand next to an infidel?

What happened was the Pope asked the world to pray for peace. That’s it. The result, so many Catholics running around like Chicken Little screaming the sky is falling or yelling about the wild monsters that might make each of us impure for standing next to or praying at the same time about the same topic!

I am sorry, but it appears as if many just want to find a problem with the Pope. It reminds of the time the Israelites being attacked by serpents were suffering; all they had to do was loot at the staff held by Moses and yet many refused; were adamant they would not look and would rather suffer their torment. I invite each of you to come in from the storm and sit in the household of Peace; accept the fact that the Pope actually knows what he is doing; he is not a doddering old fool that just likes to dress-up in fancy clothes, and consider one thing: he is the Vicar of Christ. The next time he asks you to pray on a topic; stop and pray! Don’t worry about the fellow next to you and the possibility that he might be praying about the same topic as you.

 

[dzheremi]

Hypothetical are nice for philosophy, but we are taking about reality at the moment.

Indeed we are, and the reality is that no non-Christian religion worships the true God, which is the undivided and uncreated Holy Trinity. Not Islam’s Allah, not Hinduism’s Vishnu, not aggressive atheism’s Flying Spaghetti Monster – only the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

You have created Bogey men and beat your chests with the fallacy of the Pope, but over what exactly? Your imagination that you might, God forbid, stand next to an infidel?

That’s not the issue here. For the millionth time, the issue is in praying with non-believers, and thereby validating their false religions and false Gods

What happened was the Pope asked the world to pray for peace. That’s it. The result, so many Catholics running around like Chicken Little screaming the sky is falling or yelling about the wild monsters that might make each of us impure for standing next to or praying at the same time about the same topic!

There’s quite a bit more to it than that, and you’re being disingenuous presenting it the way you do.