I think the word ‘enemy’ is a bit strong, Jim. I sincerely love St. John Paul II but his inter-faith activities did unsettle me. They didn’t seem right. With the benefit of hindsight, I can understand why he did things. I still don’t fully agree, but at least I understand his motives.
Buddhism is non-theistic. That’s not just a different interpretation of monotheism.
THE PLOT TWIST (keywords):
Everything here is accurate. I would simply note that it’s the murky space between interfaith dialogue and evangelization that worries some. The Church has done a much better job since NA of instituting open discussion with other faiths. It hasn’t always done a better job conveying that it holds the fullness of the faith.
Sure. I’m also frightened by those who think any criticism of the hierarchy is a call for open rebellion.
^ This!!! x 10!
Of course! I have often said around these parts that the threat of secularism should be a primary concern. Of course, there can be and are other many threats to the faith – secularism may be the largest but it is not alone.gracepoole:
Just a brief (personal) note in nailing down dangers to the faith, @gracepoole. The most representative danger has been secularism (not the other major faiths of long standing tradition).
In recent times, secularism has been mixed in with diffuse systems of belief (new-age influences, for example) AND…what I have felt as the most dangerous right after the irreligion of secularism, are N&R-M sects. New_R3ligious-Movingments (you’ll notice I’m attempting to derail the search engines in how I wrote). Those have indeed dangerous facets, and are growing and objectively organized to grow, there is not an unethical action that can’t be associated to them. At this point, there are countless thousands of such movements, and there seems to be a tendency for them to grow and prey on the weakest. [it makes for an ugly avenue of research…]
If and act is “inadvertent” it is not sacrilege or blasphemy. Sacrilege or blasphemy requires willful intent.
There’s a world of difference though between reasonable and balanced criticism and outright hostility - calling someone a heretic or accusing them of sacrilege tends to fall into the latter category. Equally, just because we don’t lie something doesn’t mean that it wrong and so, in some cases (especially where a decision has been made) we need to accept it in humility and move on.
Into what category does placing a false idol over the tabernacle fall? As I said, I was looking for sources that proved JPII didn’t intentionally permit this to happen as some sources have alleged. But hypothetically, let’s say that a priest does mindfully permit it to happen. That isn’t something to be accepted in humility.gracepoole:
There’s a world of difference though between reasonable and balanced criticism and outright hostility - calling someone a heretic or accusing them of sacrilege tends to fall into the latter category. Equally, just because we don’t lie something doesn’t mean that it wrong and so, in some cases (especially where a decision has been made) we need to accept it in humility and move on.
Just out of curiosity, are there idols that are not “false”? Or is “false idol” merely redundant. It doesn’t add or take away from the discussion, but it might provide insight into the minds of those classifying what is and is not an idol.
Perhaps Pope Francis can answer that question:gracepoole:
Just out of curiosity, are there idols that are not “false”? Or is “false idol” merely redundant. It doesn’t add or take away from the discussion, but it might provide insight into the minds of those classifying what is and is not an idol.
No it’s not but humility and charity do need to be present in our response - rather than lambasting the priest all over social media for being a heretic, you might instead want to approach him and discuss your concerns. When it comes to things like Assisi, given the enormous amount of preparation which goes into these sorts of things, I’d like to hope that those running the show have a fair idea of what they’re doing.
Pius XI’s primary opposition in this encyclical was to pan-Christianity and the treatment of dogmatic truth as relative. At the same time, Pius XI’s statements belong to another era and need to be understood in that context. Times have changed and our approach to other Christian communities (as well as other faiths) has likewise changed (we no longer pray for the “perfidious Jews” on Good Friday). So Pius XI’s statement that: “this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics” has been softened over time, although that’s not to say that there aren’t still limits.
Yep…this place is a gold mine!
You point me to this passage from Ottaviani, yet you are the one trying to “interpret the conciliar Decree in [your] own terms.” John Paul II said, on that day in Assisi, that it was not about creating a false unity, nor was it a concession to relativism. It was about uniting in the brotherhood we share as humans created by God, our Father. It was testifying to the presence of God in the conscience of every person in the world and the importance of respecting the decisions of conscience that our brothers and sisters obey. These are the opposite of “pernicious irenicism” and indifferentism.