Restoring Tradition

  • Thread starter Thread starter dmorgan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Julianna said:
Oh and it’s “Hindu” not henduits. Perhaps a study up on other religions would give you a better perspective. I am glad growing up that I was exposed to other Christian religions…I found a commonality in the love of God and desire to spend eternity in heaven…I did find that the methodology is different, the path is the same.
Click to expand...
Julianna, SpiritusSanctus appears to know next to nothing about other faith traditions. There is commonality in the religious search across many faiths. I used to teach a graduate theology course on mysticism, and one of the most striking things was to read the mystical accounts of Buddhists, Christians, Sufis, the Kabbalists and others. There is a common language of mystical experience that appears to transcend the idiosyncracies of expression in different faiths.
 
So what? You’re speaking like you actually believe everyone else’s imagination of who does and does not belong in hell is somehow bona-fide.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe in anyone’s imaginary ramblings about hell. Humans have been imaging hells for their opponents probably since the evolution of spiritual consciousness. It’s a useful tool for eternally isolating someone with whom you disagree.
 
Bbigam said:
One reason I “assume such things” is because our Church teaches them through Lumen Gentium section 16, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, as I quoted. The official teaching of the Church is a sure norm for what we should believe.

Of course the Church should not stop evangelizing! Never! If you would read that section of Lumen Gentium, and also the relevent sections from the Catechism, especially 848 and following, you would see that the Church makes it clear that we are still to evangelize.

By the way, the word you want is “spare.” I didn’t say that He would spare those from false religions who refuse to believe in Him, and Lumen Gentium and the Catechism don’t say that either. This isn’t about people who refuse Christ, it’s about people who never had the opportunity to learn about Him, yet did their best to follow Him without knowing His name. And as I said in my other post:

It should be clear from that that evangelization is still extremely important. I often wonder if some people actually read the posts they vehemently respond to.
Click to expand...
Certainly, we cannot charge those who never heard about Christ with the sins of disobedience.

what i am refering to are those who are around the Church has heard the Church, you know, the bishops, the priests and still rejects the Church is speaking the Truth. that is what i am talking about.
i dont know if the pope did the right thing by praying with the pagans. i dont know, the fact is that even the pope needs a holy and faithgfull people around him to advised him when these things are about to happen. certainly, i find strange that the Crucifix had to be covered, so these people could pray to their Gods. at least that is what i heard, it happened. but, we know from history that our leaders can fall into temptation, just take Solomon for an example.
 
StAnastasia said:
You referred in contemptuous tones to Hindu exorcisms. I’m merely pointing out that the the same exorcism nonsense occurs in Catholicism. You can’t have it both ways.

I’m glad you find it edifying.

****That’s out-dated exclusionary language. **** I live in a part of the world with many different faith traditions, and with active dialogue between Christians, Buddhists, Jews and Muslims. The experience of our human unity in the quest for religious truth renders your exclusionary rhetoric not only useless, but harmful.
Click to expand...
So, what has changed? what is the new language? how is this dialogue between you all of other religions in search of the Truth has accomplished so far?
 
SpiritusSanctus said:
And don’t tell me I am ignorant on this subject when you don’t even bother doing research.
Click to expand...
“Ignorance” is a descriptive term, not a judgmental one. We are all ignorant of things – I am ignorant of nanotechnology, of Italian cooking techniques, and of the variable speciation rate of Galapagos finches. You have not even describe Buddhism accurately (suggesting that its adherents “worship the Buddha”), you demonstrate that you are ignorant in that area. I don’t permit my students to criticize an opposing position in class until they can represent it honestly and fairly.

StAnastasia
 
40.png
wisdomseeker:
So, what has changed? what is the new language? how is this dialogue between you all of other religions in search of the Truth has accomplished so far?

Understanding, compassion, and cooperation. Here is a good article by a former colleague, Paul Ingram of Pacific Lutheran University: “FRUIT SALAD CAN BE DELICIOUS”:
THE PRACTICE OF BUDDHIST-CHRISTIAN DIALOGUE – crosscurrents.org/Ingram2.htm
 
What I find striking and hard to understand is when greater charity and understanding is shown to every other faith tradition and religion in the world than the traditionalist within the Catholic family. While I do not agree to some of the extremes that a few traditionalist adhere to on the topic of other religions, salvation outside the Church and how many go to Hell, a fairly strict interpretation of Extra Ecclessia Nulla Salus is allowable. The Church has never said more than the* possibility* exists for some to obtain salvation without a direct tie to the visible Church. Their inclusion into the salvation of God is through what they hold in common with the Catholic Church, not their diversity.
 
pnewton said:
What I find striking and hard to understand is when greater charity and understanding is shown to every other faith tradition and religion in the world than the traditionalist within the Catholic family.
Click to expand...
Charity and understanding should be shown to every faith tradition. That doesn’t mean that inter-faith dialogue is a non-critical lovefest, as clearly there are conflicting claims made that need to be evaluated. But another faith should only be criticized when it can be fairly described, which often it is not.

I don’t know of any in the interfaith dialogue who would take a neutral position on Scott Roeder’s shooting of George Tiller, or on crashing planes into buildings, or on Muslim-Christian slaughter in Nigeria.

StAnastasia
 
Well, I believe that the Devil exists, that Catholic exorcism is the most effective is evicting him and his associates from a possessed person or premises, that other religions do not have the fullness of the truth and that ‘dialogue with other faith traditions’ is a waste of time unless the intention is conversion.

Either we’re right, or they are. And we’re right. Decades of ecumenical ‘dialogue’ have produced nothing of value. The Protestants are still Protestants and the Catholics are still Catholics.

Then, when our good Pope Benedict cuts to the chase and graciously creates the means for the SSPX and Anglicans to be reconciled with us, in the spirit of true ecumenism, there is uproar. Or so I’ve gathered.

We can’t pander to other religions. Either we’re right, or they are. And you don’t convince people by validating their rites by attending them or trying to modify your own doctrines to please them.

Personally, I’ve found people respect forthright, dogmatic opinions. Tell them they’re wrong to their face and explain why. It’s direct and honest.
 
Bbigam said:
I’ll be honest, I have no idea what you are trying to say here. I can’t tell if you agree with me or think I’m saying something preposterous…
Click to expand...
…uh that would be the latter…preposterous.
 
Julianna said:
…the former…
Click to expand...
Just to be clear, the majority of religions teach some truths (e.g., there is one God, God made the heavens and the Earth, murder is wrong), but all religions other than the Catholic faith also teach some falsehoods and deny some truths. (Unless, of course, you belong to one of those religions or deny that there are religious truths, in which case you would see it differently).
 
‘dialogue with other faith traditions’ is a waste of time unless the intention is conversion.
Click to expand...
That would be news to most theologians.
We can’t pander to other religions. Either we’re right, or they are.
Click to expand...
With an attitude like that, no wonder you conclude that inter-religious dialogue is a waster of time.
 
Layman said:
Well, I believe that the Devil exists, that Catholic exorcism is the most effective is evicting him and his associates from a possessed person or premises, that other religions do not have the fullness of the truth and that ‘dialogue with other faith traditions’ is a waste of time unless the intention is conversion.

Either we’re right, or they are. And we’re right. Decades of ecumenical ‘dialogue’ have produced nothing of value. The Protestants are still Protestants and the Catholics are still Catholics.

Then, when our good Pope Benedict cuts to the chase and graciously creates the means for the SSPX and Anglicans to be reconciled with us, in the spirit of true ecumenism, there is uproar. Or so I’ve gathered.

We can’t pander to other religions. Either we’re right, or they are. And you don’t convince people by validating their rites by attending them or trying to modify your own doctrines to please them.

Personally, I’ve found people respect forthright, dogmatic opinions. Tell them they’re wrong to their face and explain why. It’s direct and honest.
Click to expand...
:hmmm:where have I heard that before? oh yeah :newidea: Politics! And what a mess that is right now…
 
StAnastasia said:
Understanding, compassion, and cooperation. Here is a good article by a former colleague, Paul Ingram of Pacific Lutheran University: “FRUIT SALAD CAN BE DELICIOUS”:
THE PRACTICE OF BUDDHIST-CHRISTIAN DIALOGUE – crosscurrents.org/Ingram2.htm
Click to expand...
and i asked, what have this dialogue between them and others and us, have accomplished so far?

i am not saying that dialogue is bad, it is good. this article is a lot about opinions of a protestant. protestants dont believe that there is one Truth, the CC does. to protestants is ok to believe what ever. the CC have an obligation to Jesus to preach to the whole world all He commanded. He did not say: go and dialogue your ideas with each other. He never said that.
It is ok to befriend others but never to the point of compromise our Faith. this article is pretty much a description of relativism. not one time i read anything about the Truth of our Lord jesus. in fact there is no mention of the teachings of our Lord. i cannot say too much about it, since i dont know all the conversations among them.
but i would hope that Catholics would be preaching the Gospel of our Lord Jesus, One God. buddhism do not believe in God.
 
StAnastasia said:
That would be news to most theologians.

what theologians? we only acknowledge theologians who are obedient to the Catholic Church. there are many out there whoi trying to be the Magisterium and make themselves authority of the Church. that is a no, no…

With an attitude like that, no wonder you conclude that inter-religious dialogue is a waster of time.
Click to expand...
it is time to make an assesessment of what it has been accomplished so far. how many have been converted into the CC?
 
wisdomseeker said:
and i asked, what have this dialogue between them and others and us, have accomplished so far?

i am not saying that dialogue is bad, it is good. this article is a lot about opinions of a protestant. protestants dont believe that there is one Truth, the CC does. to protestants is ok to believe what ever. the CC have an obligation to Jesus to preach to the whole world all He commanded. He did not say: go and dialogue your ideas with each other. He never said that.
It is ok to befriend others but never to the point of compromise our Faith. this article is pretty much a description of relativism. not one time i read anything about the Truth of our Lord jesus. in fact there is no mention of the teachings of our Lord. i cannot say too much about it, since i dont know all the conversations among them.
but i would hope that Catholics would be preaching the Gospel of our Lord Jesus, One God. buddhism do not believe in God.
Click to expand...
I very much agree with most of what you have to say here. However, it’s not really an accurate way of representing what Protestants believe regarding Truth. Sure, there are many Protestants who don’t believe there is one Truth, sort of a “believe whatever as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone” view. But there are many other Protestants that do believe that there is one single Truth. They just, wrongly, don’t believe that it is found in the Catholic Church, and they don’t believe there is one single visible Church.
 
Bbigam said:
I very much agree with most of what you have to say here. However, it’s not really an accurate way of representing what Protestants believe regarding Truth. Sure, there are many Protestants who don’t believe there is one Truth, sort of a “believe whatever as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone” view. But there are many other Protestants that do believe that there is one single Truth. They just, wrongly, don’t believe that it is found in the Catholic Church, and they don’t believe there is one single visible Church.
Click to expand...
and which protestants believe that there is One Truth? what diference does it make if they dont believe that CC is the One True Church? they just reject the Truth, dont they? all the Pharisees believed in God, didnt they? yet, they refuse to believe in Jesus. was there a problem with this? yes, there was.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top