What's the point of "inter-religious dialogue"?

[Dempsey1919]

Inter-religious dialogue is a great for promoting peace between the faiths. Sectarianism is never a good thing, and I think dialouge helps to prevent this.

This dialogue should always be done respectfully, and it should be undertaken with conversion at the forefront of your mind. However, even if conversion is not possible, I believe dialogue is good in promoting friendship among the Churches. Let’s not forget that all Christians fight the common enemies of secularism and other religions within our society. This is not to say that other religions are totally wrong or “evil;” what I mean is that other religions such as Islam are becoming more and more widespread, especially in Europe. For this reason, I believe that all Christian Churches should work together and prevent a united front. United we stand, divided we fall.

 

[Kaninchen]

And my ancestors, well, grandparents, faced religious persecution as well. The Jews aren’t the only people suffering on this planet.

Never said we were, don’t see where I said we were?

Ah I see, Jews are just perfectly innocent… and while were at it, let’s just drop our beliefs and mirror the Jews in their absence of evangelization.

I’m sure you enjoyed that but I fail to see that it is any kind of response to what I said.

 

[Kaninchen]

We should talk to other religions in the hopes of converting them… If we truly loved everyone we would want them to know JESUS…who is the Christ son of the living God…

You don’t feel that people will just stop listening if all ‘talk’ is about ‘converting’.

 

[Unitas]

Interreligious dialogues are PR conventions that give Catholics the opportunity to compromise our beliefs so other religions like us more.

AKA Political Correctness.

Cardinal Kasper has said that the ‘new ecumenism’ of VII no longer seeks conversion and is separated from the Church’s primary mission of evangelization. If it has nothing to do with the great commission, then it seems it is nothing more than a back-slapping party.

 

[sancte_joseph]

You don’t feel that people will just stop listening if all ‘talk’ is about ‘converting’.

Let the Lord judge if they do not listen…but

i ask you personally…have you stopped believing that the Holy Catholic Church is the True Church of God???

If you still believe this then lets not be bothered on how we talk…the Holy Spirit will help us…just as Jesus sais…’

If they don’t listen that is by their own choice even after God has touched them through our evangelical words

 

[Genesis315]

Here’s what the Pope says is the point:
catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=12883

Also, from Dominus Iesus:

In inter-religious dialogue as well, the mission *ad gentes *“today as always retains its full force and necessity”.95 “Indeed, God ‘desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth’ (1 Tim 2:4); that is, God wills the salvation of everyone through the knowledge of the truth. Salvation is found in the truth. Those who obey the promptings of the Spirit of truth are already on the way of salvation. But the Church, to whom this truth has been entrusted, must go out to meet their desire, so as to bring them the truth. Because she believes in God’s universal plan of salvation, the Church must be missionary”.96 Inter-religious dialogue, therefore, as part of her evangelizing mission, is just one of the actions of the Church in her mission ad gentes.97 Equality, which is a presupposition of inter-religious dialogue, refers to the equal personal dignity of the parties in dialogue, not to doctrinal content, nor even less to the position of Jesus Christ — who is God himself made man — in relation to the founders of the other religions. Indeed, the Church, guided by charity and respect for freedom,98 must be primarily committed to proclaiming to all people the truth definitively revealed by the Lord, and to announcing the necessity of conversion to Jesus Christ and of adherence to the Church through Baptism and the other sacraments, in order to participate fully in communion with God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Thus, the certainty of the universal salvific will of God does not diminish, but rather increases the duty and urgency of the proclamation of salvation and of conversion to the Lord Jesus Christ.

Here Paul VI explains the meaning of dialogue (Ecclesiam Suam):

The Term Explained
64. If, as We said, the Church realizes what is God’s will in its regard, it will gain for itself a great store of energy, and in addition will conceive the need for pouring out this energy in the service of all men. It will have a clear awareness of a mission received from God, of a message to be spread far and wide. Here lies the source of our evangelical duty, our mandate to teach all nations, and our apostolic endeavor to strive for the eternal salvation of all men. Merely to remain true to the faith is not enough. Certainly we must preserve and defend the treasure of truth and grace that we have inherited through Christian tradition. As St. Paul said, “keep that which is committed to thy trust.” (42) But neither the preservation nor the defense of the faith exhausts the duty of the Church in regard to the gifts it has been given. The very nature of the gifts which Christ has given the Church demands that they be extended to others and shared with others. This must be obvious from the words: “Going, therefore, teach ye all nations,” (43) Christ’s final command to His apostles. The word apostle implies a mission from which there is no escaping.

To this internal drive of charity which seeks expression in the external gift of charity, We will apply the word “dialogue.”

1. The Church must enter into dialogue with the world in which it lives. It has something to say, a message to give, a communication to make.

 

[Kaninchen]

Let the Lord judge if they do not listen…but

i ask you personally…have you stopped believing that the Holy Catholic Church is the True Church of God???

I’ve never believed that the ‘Holy Catholic Church’ is the ‘True Church of God’. I am and have always been Jewish.

 

[strngrnrth]

Respecting human beings isn’t the same as respecting beliefs. Nowadays it’s fashionable to say we respect all beliefs. In fact we should respect all people’s right to examine and decide on beliefs, but in the end some will be shown true and some false. Therefore we talk about why we belive what we believe, so that our reasoning may become part of someone else’s choice. But it is not in style to treat ideas as true or false, so the the premise with which most people today begin is that everyone is right. This is as disastrous in religion as in aerospace engineering. We can discuss differences and take them seriously in a loving way and that’s the point. Just as I might argue with a roommate about whether to put a hubcap in the microwave, I can argue religion.

 

[catharina]

That’s an interesting story, I would love to know where you found it.

I too await documentation. Source, please?

 

[moosears]

Inter-religious dialogue is just as much a part of Sacred tradition as the Mass itself. It is inferred in the words of Christ, “…going, therefore, teach all nations…”.

I suppose the alternative to dialogue would be to threaten their lives if they did not convert, but that is tantamount to Mohammedanism. No, people will not be converted if they don’t hear the Gospel preached and demonstrated to them and how will they hear and see it unless doors are open to get to them.

Those who are overly concerned about inter-religious dialogue misunderstand the mission of the Church. The Church must give the gifts of Christ away in order to fully possess them. We do not live in a Christian world anymore so to open up a dialogue just makes sense.

Besides, in doing this She encourages all religions to work very hard to decrease human suffering and increase world peace. These are obligations of all people no matter what their religious and political preference may be and whether they realize it or not.

These so-called “code words” have their origin in the most liberal-minded members of the Church who take and pervert it’s original intent. But then again they pervert everything intrinsically Catholic and turn it into something opposite. These things are a diabolical disorientation and not the mind of the Church. The purpose that these “neutralizers” (as I will call them) serve is to discredit the original intentions of our Church leaders and to add to their numbers by subterfuge. With these people within our numbers, I would say that there is a greater danger of losing the faith from within the Church than from influences without.

 

[KingAlfred]

“What’s the point of “inter-religious dialogue” ??”

It’s important to establish mutual respect, tolerance and unity in keeping our nation’s culture Christian. I still haven’t grown totally immune to the intensity of much of the anti-Catholicism that lingers, or even perhaps thrives, in the U.S. today. Whenever I encounter it, I feel tempted to abandon inter-faith dialogue and hunker down behind of the bulwarks of Catholicism in America. Nonetheless, I know that wouldn’t serve the Common Good. We must defend our faith, yet simultaneously reach out to those non-Catholics who are enlightened enough to understand the value of inter-faith fellowship. Sadly, I suspect their numbers are few.

 

[PrayforMallory]

The point of inter-religious dialogue and ecumenism, as I understand it to be (from Pope Benedict) is the following:

1. A human being has an innate dignity, solely by virtue of being human, and thus cannot be abused or maligned even because of false religious belief.
2. Free will is a gift from God, and has to be respected as a such. If a person exercises free will to join a false religion, then that person’s choice has to be respected, even though we have a duty to point out that individual’s error.
3. An evangelical approach based on identifying common ground instead of differences, in the hope that other religions will see that only the Catholic Church has the fullness of truth.

I have to be opposed to inter-religious dialogue, not because I believe it is contrary to doctrine, or that it’s wrong, but because I just don’t think it works. In my opinion, no one can be converted through polemics alone. It’s taken me 27 years to reach this point, and I just don’t see anyone converting due to losing an argument. The best we can do is state our case, live our lives, try to achieve sanctity, and hope that grace moves others to investigate our faith. We are not going to convince Buddhists of the truth of the faith through an argument, or through a conference. We can write books, pray for conversions, but that’s really about it. Our good works, the fruits of our lives, and the truth of Catholic literature and art, can help facilitate this, but people aren’t going to convert because we prove our case in an argument. That’s just going to make them even more defensive.

Furthermore, the justifications for common ground with Protestants is evaporating. A good chunk of them no longer agree with us on basic life issues. When this is this case, I really don’t see what advantages could be had in working with them. If they aren’t opposed to abortion, there really isn’t anything to gain from trying to unite with them for political purposes. Same with stem-cell research, social justice, etc. Once a Protestant sect falls to modernism, there really is no gain in trying to work with them.

Just my thoughts.

 

[moosears]

Our good works, the fruits of our lives, and the truth of Catholic literature and art, can help facilitate this.

This is why dialogue is necessary. They may not get an opportunity to see these things if there were no chance of getting close to them. I agree that argument is not the answer but I also do not believe the Holy Father intends for any of us to engage in a religious debate. That would just be insulting to many of them. Your opinion makes perfect sense but I just don’t think that that is what the Pope has in mind.

 

[Layman]

I think the knight did well. His behaviour was in keeping with the times. He was a cripple, and a soldier. He made a very valid religious point and rebuked witless clergy very directly.

Inviting Jews to debate religion in a major house of God? Outrageous.

People in those days were hardy. His behaviour wasn’t unusual. How different today, when people are afraid to even speak their own minds.

I’d much rather someone was forthright like him than this mincing ‘dialogue’ I hear about, which suggests creeping appeasement to me.

When I see clergy getting into ‘inter-faith dialogue’, ecumenism and varying the liturgy, I back away fast.

What a clever way to destroy a religion; vary it, water it down, introduce novelties, until no sensible, adult man would bother it.

 

[Lhhs]

What’s the point if we don’t proclaim our faith?

Exactly.
If the point isn’t to share and declare the Truth and concern for saving souls, then once can only conlude . … .

 

[Unitas]

Inter-religious dialogue is just as much a part of Sacred tradition as the Mass itself. It is inferred in the words of Christ, “…going, therefore, teach all nations…”.

But the second part of that is *baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. * AKA, bringing them into the one true faith. Cardinal Kasper, the head of the Congregation for Christian Unity, as well as the USCCB has said that the “new” ecumenism of Vatican II no longer seeks an ecumenism of return. That is, dialogues for the purpose of conversion to the one true faith. So no, modern ecumenism has nothing to do with your quote. It has nothing to do with the Church’s mission on earth.

That is, unless even our appointed leaders do no know what VII means…

I suppose the alternative to dialogue would be to threaten their lives if they did not convert, but that is tantamount to Mohammedanism.

False dichotomy. You say that we can either pat each other on the back or convert by the sword. That’s not true at all.

Besides, in doing this She encourages all religions to work very hard to decrease human suffering and increase world peace.

What if the false religions of the world are the cause of human suffering and a threat to world peace? What then?

The purpose of religion is worship of the true God and eternal salvation, not world peace. Christ came not to bring peace, but the sword of truth. And the truth will divide. Unity is nothing if not in truth. That is unity in error.

Even so, what about eternal salvation? False worship does not lead to salvation. Mitigation of human suffering and world peace means nothing when compared to eternity. “I may be in hell, but at least my time on earth was peaceful and comfortable.” Striving for these things is a waste of time if not sought in the context of everlasting life in the one true faith. Charitable works are of the Lord, but we must remember that eternal life is more important than temporal peace and comfort.

Bringing the true gospel as food for their souls is as important if not more so than bringing them food for their bellies. Why? because this life is temporary, and eternity is a very long, long time.

 

[EasterJoy]

The conversation between Jesus and the woman at the well was an interfaith dialogue. You don’t have to agree with someone or pretend that you both think the same in order for a dialogue to take place. To have a dialogue simply means that both parties are allowed talk and that both also listen.

If another searches as diligently as we have, but has not had the truth revealed to them, what do we have to boast about? It is not because we are more deserving that we have such a priceless gift. In some cases, they act more as if they have been given the truth than we do. Shall we be proud, when we know the truth and others with a fraction of that grace live it more fully? As for those who live nothing, would we be different, save through grace? So yes, we must respect them as persons whom God thirsts for, and give them some fraction of the patience which Heaven continually shows to us.

If you never listen, but always talk, how will you ever learn what the sticking points are that prevent the Gospel from penetrating hearts? If you cannot acknowledge the truth of those places where other people are right, or where they at least desire the right things, even if they reach the wrong conclustions, why should they think you would know the truth if it whacked you on the head? Heaven forbid that a conviction we deserve might fall upon the Gospel, because of our stubbornness and pride.

Remember the story of how St. Paul preached to the Greeks by his knowledge of “the God Unknown.” If he had thought there was nothing in their culture worth learning about, how could he have known to do that?

 

[EasterJoy]

What’s the point if we don’t proclaim our faith?

"King Louis also spoke to me of a great assembly of clergy and Jews which had taken place at the monastery of Cluny. There was a poor knight there at the time to whom the abbot had often given bread for the love of God. This knight asked the abbot if he could speak first, and his request was granted, though somewhat grudgingly. So he rose to his feet, and leaning on his crutch, asked to have the most important and learned rabbi among the Jews brought before him. As soon as the Jew had come, the knight asked him a question: ‘May I know, sir,’ he said, ‘if you believe that the Virgin Mary, who bore our Lord in her body and cradled Him in her arms, was a virgin at the time of His birth, and is in truth the Mother of God?’

The Jew replied that he had no belief in any of those things. Thereupon the knight told the Jew that he had acted like a fool when -neither believing in the Virgin, nor loving her- he had set foot in that monastery which was her house. ‘And by heaven’, exclaimed the knight, ‘I’ll make you pay for it!’ So he lifted his crutch and struck the Jew such a blow with it near the ear that he knocked him down. Then all the Jews took to flight, and carried their sorely wounded rabbi away with them. Thus the conference ended.

The abbot went up to the knight and told him he ad acted most unwisely. The knight retorted that the abbot had been guilty of even greater folly in calling people together for such a conference, because there were many good Christians there who, before the discussion ended, would have gone away with doubts about their own religion through not fully understanding the Jews.

‘So I tell you,’ said the king, 'that no one, unless he is an expert theologian, should venture to argue with these people. But a layman, whenever he hears the Christian religion abused, should not attempt to defend its tenets, except with his sword, and that he should thrust into the scoundrel’s belly, and as far as it will enter

Why would Our Lord react differently to that knight than he did to St. Peter, who struck off the ear of the high priest’s servant in Gethsemane? Surely Our Lord would rebuke the knight, and heal the rabbi.

The Christian who lacks the words to defend the Gospel from those who would lay hands on it should do so by the witness of his life. If that is lacking, no amount of bloodletting will cover the scandal. If it is present, no sword will be deadly enough nor any crowd loud enough to silence the its witness.

 

[moosears]

But the second part of that is *baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. * AKA, bringing them into the one true faith. Cardinal Kasper, the head of the Congregation for Christian Unity, as well as the USCCB has said that the “new” ecumenism of Vatican II no longer seeks an ecumenism of return. That is, dialogues for the purpose of conversion to the one true faith. So no, modern ecumenism has nothing to do with your quote. It has nothing to do with the Church’s mission on earth.

That is, unless even our appointed leaders do no know what VII means…

False dichotomy. You say that we can either pat each other on the back or convert by the sword. That’s not true at all.

What if the false religions of the world are the cause of human suffering and a threat to world peace? What then?

The purpose of religion is worship of the true God and eternal salvation, not world peace. Christ came not to bring peace, but the sword of truth. And the truth will divide. Unity is nothing if not in truth. That is unity in error.

Even so, what about eternal salvation? False worship does not lead to salvation. Mitigation of human suffering and world peace means nothing when compared to eternity. “I may be in hell, but at least my time on earth was peaceful and comfortable.” Striving for these things is a waste of time if not sought in the context of everlasting life in the one true faith. Charitable works are of the Lord, but we must remember that eternal life is more important than temporal peace and comfort.

Bringing the true gospel as food for their souls is as important if not more so than bringing them food for their bellies. Why? because this life is temporary, and eternity is a very long, long time.

I just do not see how inter-religious dialogue = surrendering the true faith. I think it is more about healing the wounds inflicted upon each other and keeping the doors of hospitality open to attempt to prevent past hostilities between faiths and cultures, as much as possible, from occurring again.

But as far as the “religion of peace” goes, stay away and absolutely do not trust them. They are waiting for the appropriate moment to stick the dagger in. These people scare me.

 

[EasterJoy]

One might make excuses for him, or one might not, but the knight’s actions are not praiseworthy, in any event.

As for religious truth, John Paul warned his audience at the canonization of St. Edith Stein that we should not accept as love that which lacks truth, nor accept as truth that which lacks love. I think that puts it in a nutshell. This doesn’t mean there isn’t to be any talking, or that we bash someone in the head if they don’t accept the truth. Sometimes, these things take time. It does mean that putting a half-truth on the same footing with the truth is not a loving action.