Syncretistic prayers with Muslims... any advice?

[Busy_bee]

One linguistic note here: The OP used the term “syncretistic” as a slur. Syncretism means that you are putting together elements from different religions. From my point of view, praying with Muslims is not “syncretistic” if we are simply affirming those things that are genuinely common to the two traditions. Syncretism would be, for instance, finding some way to believe that Muhammad is God’s apostle in the sense claimed by Muslims while also saying that Jesus is the Son of God in the sense claimed by Christians. Or, on a practical level, a syncretist might pray five times a day using Muslim rituals while also receiving the Eucharist.

I don’t condemn syncretism outright, but I think most syncretism is very thoughtless and sloppy and should be avoided. If we can find a way to combine elements of two traditions without disregarding questions of truth, then fine. But syncretism is not a banner under which I would like to march.

Edwin

I agree with this.

 

[Mickey]

And this requires an astonishing amount of historical denial of you as an Orthodox Christian.

Nonsense.

To anyone except diehard conservative Orthodox Christians like yourself

You ar very quick with the labels. Where I’m from…it is called Orthodox Christian…period. Although, coming from an ultra liberal Episcipalian background as yourself…I would guess that I seem like a “diehard conservative”.

it is obvious that Orthodoxy is one of the glorious triumphs of syncretism.

More nonsense.

Since I don’t think syncretism is bad,

Yes…we know.You also support female ordination…so most people here know where you stand on matters.

the fact that Orthodoxy is syncretistic doesn’t bother me in the slightest.

Wrong.

I just need to learn to roll my eyes when Orthodox Christians condemn syncretism.

Keep rollin em Ed…because you are way off base.

 

[Mickey]

"The love for the God who reveals himself and for his word, the love for the sacraments and the church, are an efficacious antidote against a syncretism which deceives,” Pope Benedict XVI

 

[jakasaki]

It’s a shame the OP has not returned to the thread with the actual details for his first post.

 

[1AugustSon7]

The root difficulty here is an all too human one; it can be expressed by the question,

**What makes something what it is? **

That is,

**What makes it what is and not something else? **

Almighty God, being an invisible Spirit, is even more difficult to speak of than the ordinary things of daily life which fall under our senses, and even properly describing and differentiating between them can be a challenge.

Take, for example, the common couch. My couch in the Western world varies greatly in so many respects, such as size, weight, shape and the like; but I can always recognize it. Nonetheless, in other parts of the world, that couch might be of such a different design and shape that I could hardly fathom recognizing or describing it as a couch. Such a situation, at least, is a potential reality; nonetheless, the couch’s essence, in this case, is still a couch; however, also possible is a situation where something else that is being called a couch is, in fact, not actually a couch. Let us say that this object is, in fact, a bed and some salesman is trying to sell it to some poor, ignorant (and imaginary) peasants as being a luxury “couch”. If we were present, we would cry foul and object, though the salesman might be a sophist and try to convince us that the bed is, indeed, actually a couch. So he says that it is possible to lay down on both things, and that people do indeed lay down on both; that both things are comfortable and people are known to watch TV whilst laying in either. He continues on like this. Now this will either obsfucate us if we lack fortitude, or else increase our just ire.

So we see that the question boils down to,

**What is it? **

And,

Is it the same thing?

Is our Lord and Saviour equivalent and, therefore, synonymous with the Muslim’s Allah? Or is He only like his Allah? If synonymous or equivalent, then we are engaging in semanctics by arguing about it; if, however, there exists only a likeness or resemblance, but a substantial difference, then indeed we are recognizing two different things that cannot be made absolutely equivocal. In the latter case we would, in fact, be imagining a phantasm.

 

[Busy_bee]

The root difficulty here is an all too human one; it can be expressed by the question,

**What makes something what it is? **

That is,

**What makes it what is and not something else? **

Almighty God, being an invisible Spirit, is even more difficult to speak of than the ordinary things of daily life which fall under our senses, and even properly describing and differentiating between them can be a challenge.

Take, for example, the common couch. My couch in the Western world varies greatly in so many respects, such as size, weight, shape and the like; but I can always recognize it. Nonetheless, in other parts of the world, that couch might be of such a different design and shape that I could hardly fathom recognizing or describing it as a couch. Such a situation, at least, is a potential reality; nonetheless, the couch’s essence, in this case, is still a couch; however, also possible is a situation where something else that is being called a couch is, in fact, not actually a couch. Let us say that this object is, in fact, a bed and some salesman is trying to sell it to some poor, ignorant (and imaginary) peasants as being a luxury “couch”. If we were present, we would cry foul and object, though the salesman might be a sophist and try to convince us that the bed is, indeed, actually a couch. So he says that it is possible to lay down on both things, and that people do indeed lay down on both; that both things are comfortable and people are known to watch TV whilst laying in either. He continues on like this. Now this will either obsfucate us if we lack fortitude, or else increase our just ire.

So we see that the question boils down to,

**What is it? **

And,

Is it the same thing?

Is our Lord and Saviour equivalent and, therefore, synonymous with the Muslim’s Allah? Or is He only like his Allah? If synonymous or equivalent, then we are engaging in semanctics by arguing about it; if, however, there exists only a likeness or resemblance, but a substantial difference, then indeed we are recognizing two different things that cannot be made absolutely equivocal. In the latter case we would, in fact, be imagining a phantasm.

Hear, hear!

 

[melodisthymn2]

St. Paul said, “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness, and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial?”

Muslims deny the Son of God, deny the Fatherhood of God, deny the Holy Trinity, deny the infallibilty of Holy Scripture, outlaw wine (the species of the Holy Blood), demand the death of any Muslim who converts to another religion, demand the subjugation of all other religions to the triumphalism that brews in the black box in Mecca…and on and on…long and short other religions as well as islam are the products of the father of lies. Whilst JPII was a powerful instrument for the decrease of openly hostile communism - pretending ‘concord’ between Christ and Belial is not of the Truth - the Truth is a Person - the second Person of the Holy Trinity - God the Son.