I watched the inter-religious meeting on TV. …He did have this to say in his
speech.
“The broader purpose of dialogue is to discover the truth. What is the origin and destiny of mankind? What are good and evil? What awaits us at the end of our earthly existence? Only by addressing these deeper questions can we build a solid basis for the peace and security of the human family, for “wherever and whenever men and women are enlightened by the splendor of truth, they naturally set out on the path of peace…Confronted with these deeper questions concerning the origin and destiny of mankind,
Christianity proposes Jesus of Nazareth. He, we believe, is the eternal Logos who became flesh in order to reconcile man to God and reveal the underlying reason of all things. It is he whom we bring to the forum of interreligious dialogue. The ardent desire to follow in his footsteps spurs Christians to open their minds and hearts in dialogue”
The part that troubles me with the speech was that it sounds so neutral. It’s as if the One True Church is going to sit down as equals with all the varying world (false) religions and uncover some hidden truth, and the Christian perspective is just gonna be thrown onto the table for consideration. Sort of like, “Well* for us* truth is…” That just doesn’t sound like the language of the Church. It doesn’t sound confident. It doesn’t sound convinced.
Don’t take me wrong here - the mere fact that the Holy Father stated “
The broader purpose of dialogue is to discover the truth” is a good step forward to what alot of what we’ve seen in the past. But it gives the impression that the Catholic Church also wants to “discover” truth, rather than share and proclaim the Truth already revealed.
After he received the gifts a choir sang a song about St Frances. There was no common prayer. The other religions were not allowed to pray. The Pope was clearly the center of attention, the way it should be.
Thank goodness! Another step forward.
I must say though, it was primarily the gift giving ceremony that set me off on the wrong foot here. The visual of the Vicar of Christ graciously accepting the symbols of false religions that
explicitly reject Him and
lead many souls into Hell by this very rejection, well that all made me feel like I got hit in the stomach*.*
I understand the motivations behind it - but I think in the zeal not to offend and find “common ground”, somewhere, someone is forgetting the words of Pope Pius XI:
2. A similar object is aimed at by some, in those matters which concern the New Law promulgated by Christ our Lord. For since they hold it for certain that men destitute of all religious sense are very rarely to be found, they seem to have founded on that belief a hope that the nations, although they differ among themselves in certain religious matters, will without much difficulty come to agree as brethren in professing certain doctrines, which form as it were a common basis of the spiritual life. For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics,
founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule.
Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little, turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.
(Mortalium Animos, 2)
I liked Matt’s article. I trying to be more postive these days.
Me too.
Peace in Christ,
DustinsDad
Ya, ad hominum, but then neither deserves any better.