That Buddha on the altar when JPII was in Assisi

  • Thread starter Thread starter gracepoole
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Cardinal Lustiger wrote an excellent article on Liberty, Equalirt, Fraternity in the Church. Benedict XVI explained the change wrt Liberty in his 2005 Christmas address to the Curia. Describing the hermeneutic of reform he said:
The Second Vatican Council, recognizing and making its own an essential principle of the modern State with the Decree on Religious Freedom, has recovered the deepest patrimony of the Church. By so doing she can be conscious of being in full harmony with the teaching of Jesus himself (cf. Mt 22: 21), as well as with the Church of the martyrs of all time…

The martyrs of the early Church died for their faith in that God who was revealed in Jesus Christ, and for this very reason they also died for freedom of conscience and the freedom to profess one’s own faith - a profession that no State can impose but which, instead, can only be claimed with God’s grace in freedom of conscience. A missionary Church known for proclaiming her message to all peoples must necessarily work for the freedom of the faith. She desires to transmit the gift of the truth that exists for one and all.

At the same time, she assures peoples and their Governments that she does not wish to destroy their identity and culture by doing so, but to give them, on the contrary, a response which, in their innermost depths, they are waiting for - a response with which the multiplicity of cultures is not lost but instead unity between men and women increases and thus also peace between peoples.

The Second Vatican Council, with its new definition of the relationship between the faith of the Church and certain essential elements of modern thought, has reviewed or even corrected certain historical decisions, but in this apparent discontinuity it has actually preserved and deepened her inmost nature and true identity.
Click to expand...
 
Francis4 said:
In other words, the masonic revolutionaries ideas condemned by the Church in the past as clearly contrary to the principles of the faith have now been falsely embraced.
Click to expand...
Do you really think “falsely” is justified here? It is nowhere indicated in the quote from Cardinal Ratzinger. He simply describes the documents as “an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789.” This is exactly what he said in the quote in my last post, that the Second Vatican Council “has reviewed or even corrected certain historical decisions.”

If we agree that the Church now endorses what it once condemned, that leaves us with evaluating the two positions, as you suggest at the end of your post:
Francis4 said:
today we see the catastrophic results as a consequence of embracing these false ideas.
Click to expand...
In the 60 years following the Syllabus of Errors, we saw WWI and the Russian Revolution. In the 20 years after Mortalium Animos we saw WW2. In the 60 years since Vatican 2, we saw people of different religions gather to pray for peace.

I am not sure I would call the results after the 1960s “catastrophic” especially when compared to what came after the earlier documents. Embracing the values of the era of revolution was not “false” but rather “preserved and deepened her inmost nature and true identity.”
 
Not sure if did or didn’t happen. But, I do know Our Lady, if She could, willed, and Christ Our Blessed Lord should want to. She could visit Buddhist’s. And, She could teach them the Rosary. Which many would be brought into the Faith. Replacing the Buddhist statue with Her’s, the Immaculate Conception.

Praying for their families. Praying to the God of the Living by Our Lady’s request. Rather than the deceased Buddha.
 
Benedict XVI made that claim. His argument was that your position was not the faith of the martyrs, who freely gave their lives for Christ. Your claims that it is what “the Church has always stood for” does not stand up to scrutiny. Every martyr is an example of the freedom we believe in.

Benedict’s argument does not settle all the difficulties with the events in Assisi. It does give a new perspective on the teaching of Pius X & XI.
 
I do not disagree with you about the discontinuity between Pius IX and the Second Vatican Council. I thank you for the quotes you give showing that Vatican II embraced the values of the “era of 1789.”

We agree on this discontinuity. You do not need to provide any more evidence about that.

The questions remaining are:
  1. Which of these two positions reflects the teaching of the Church today?
  2. Which of these reflects the constant teaching of the Church?
  3. Which reflects the Will of God?
1 I think we agree that the Church today embraces Justice, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. If you disagree, read the quotes you have been providing, Benedict XVI’s 2005 Christmas address to the curia, etc.

2 i think we agree there has been a change, or a “discontinuity” as Benedict describes it. Neither position has been the constant teaching of the Church. Do you disagree?

3 Every martyr “died for freedom of conscience and the freedom to profess one’s own faith” according to Benedict. This faith of the martyrs is reflected in the decree on Religious Freedom. That settles it for me.

I think these summarize the issues, but there may be other questions. Certainly there are other ways to answer these. I am jusst trying to clarify where we disagree and why.
 
Francis4 said:
Self appointed saints. . . Please. . .

Convenient for you to avoid answering avoid answering the question. Please a pagan devoid of grace a saint ! Yeah sure, whatever !
Click to expand...
I gave the reference from the Catholic Encyclopedia in my post #49 above. Up until 1969 his feast day was 27 November. He is still celebrated by the Eastern Orthodox on 26 August.
 
There is no evidence that Ss. Barlaam and Josaphat are not real saints.

There are indications that their legend includes elements that are the same as some Buddhist stories. But they might be from stories more ancient than Buddhism or Christianity, or they might be Christian or Jewish story elements that traveled to India.

You cannot believe everything you read, or all the conclusions that people draw.

Anybody who believes the Buddha is just like a Christian saint is ignorant of both Buddhism and Christianity. The whole point of Buddhism is to escape suffering, and ultimately, to escape existence. The whole point of Christianity is to suffer with Jesus and live in Christ, in order to exist eternally with God.
 
Francis4 said:
The Constant teaching of the Church reflects the will of God. Anything else pure and simple novelty which we Catholics need to reject exactly as that.
Click to expand...
Every martyr “died for freedom of conscience and the freedom to profess one’s own faith” according to Benedict. One could even extend that to say that the Crucifixion is an example of freedom of conscience and professing faith. The example of the martyrs shows us what has been the Constant teaching of the Church.

I do not know how Pius IX et seg came to condemn the ideal of freedom. It certainly not the “constant” teaching of a Church that reveres Christ by using images of Crucifixion and Martyrdom. Perhaps there was some just reason to condemn Liberty, Equality, Fraternity?

NB i want to add that I have not flagged any of your posts. Someone else must find them offensive. It is one of the more difficult parts on many forums.
 
Don’t worry my friend, after all with time, a couple suspensions and some flags you will understand how this place works.
 
Last edited:
They’ve already been suspended. Perhaps due to someone in this thread… 😦
 
Buddha is not a saint. The condition of Sainthood is in the Church. Which is Sacramental. Thus, he did not live this way. But, I believe in his seeking through philosophical structure, even in the religiosity of that philosophy, was his desire in as much as to be a saint. But, that was years before Christianity surfaced. Yet, as a person in the consequence, history, and tradition of Buddhism, nevertheless, sought sainthood in a way. He did look in some respect, but in a broken way, toward the Beatitudes. And thus, does his teaching reflect the desires that the Church espouses.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps you should read A Horse and His Boy again. The interplay of Tash and Aslan might give you some idea how a follower of Tash might be revered as a true follower of Aslan. (if I am remembering the story correctly.)

The Bodhisattva (Buddha before Enlightenment) had an encounter with Dipankara that committed him to the path to enlightenment. That story was retold in Arabic and Armenian versions before it reached European ears. Alng the way Dipankara became Barlaam and Bodhisattva morphed into Josaphat, Christian saints.

Devotion to the two spread, with praiseworthy results. For example in the 19th century, Tolstoy was inspired to renounce wealth and war in favor of pacifism.

The real person behind the stories of St Josaphat is Guatama Buddha. There may be reasons to deny the reality of that, but even so, it is clear that the life of Buddha has been revered by Christians. And his person.

I do not know a good theology to explain this. Or if it is even relevant to the situation of Buddhists worshipping in Assisi. But I do agree that Catholics and Buddhists share many values, and the evidence for this is not particularly new.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top