Why Does the Vatican Need to Humor Other Religions

[itsjustdave1988]

Why does the pope feel the need to make Jews, Moslems, Islams, Buddists, Protestants etc. happy?

I think perhaps the pope is following in Paul’s footsteps…

1 Cor 9:20-22: “I became to the Jews a Jew, that I might gain the Jews…To the weak I became weak, that I might gain the weak. I became all things to all men, that I might save all.”

 

[Sir_Anthony]

so how far should we go to keep the peace? would you suggest our pope to kiss the kahran ?
should we take a mass that we know pleases God and change it to make protestants more comfortable?
should we let jews determine who is excommunicated or not?
we as catholics have an obligation to preach the truth for we are the only religion who has the full truth. we do not need to change.

I agree with you completely, this modern mentality seems to forget the fact that Christianity is built on the blood of its martyrs, of those who didn’t ‘tolerate’ the pagan religions or the Jewish community early in the Church or the numerous martyrdoms suffered due to the moslems. However, I am just saying that this could be the rationale of some people. Pushing evangelizations and creating all kinds of internal havoc seems worst to modern man than keeping the peace and status quo. Indeed if you really push evangelization I could see persecution not just in moslem and other countries, but even in historically Christian nations where missionaries would be forbidden from leaving, locked up and jailed to prevent them offending people. Though I think the current ideas of being ‘tolerant’ is just slowing down the inevitable which is the wholesale persecution of the church worldwide. I always take comfort in the words of Our Lady, that everything is going bad but it is temporarily for in the end only her Immaculate Heart will triumph.

 

[Kook]

I was trying to explain Second Vatican Council, not Pelgianism.

Without faith it is impossible to believe in God. But we must also believe that atheists who find it impossible to believe in God will not be sent to hell for that reason alone even if they lead virtuous lives, and a Christian will gain automatic entry to heaven in spite of being totally evil, simply because they say they believe in Jesus. The letter of James states clearly that even the devil believes in God, so belief alone is not sufficient, it must be proved by obeying the commands of Jesus. Faith without works is mere fantasy and is therefore dead.

Your explanation is what sounded Pelagian, though. One can believe in God and still not have supernatural faith. Otherwise, we would be left saying that any belief in God would suffice for salvation even if it wasn’t the True Faith. Dominus Iesus seems quite clear that religious belief of the false sort is not the same as the supernatural virtue of faith, which is necessary for salvation.

Atheists (and anyone else) who die without faith but have a multitude of good works will still be damned.

 

[Cat]

so how far should we go to keep the peace? would you suggest our pope to kiss the kahran ?
should we take a mass that we know pleases God and change it to make protestants more comfortable?
should we let jews determine who is excommunicated or not?
we as catholics have an obligation to preach the truth for we are the only religion who has the full truth. we do not need to change.

Boldface mine–I assume you are referring to the OF of the Mass?

My husband and I were born and raised and active in evangelical Protestant churches for over forty years.

When we first visited Mass (OF) back in 2001, we
thought it was the most ancient ceremony we had ever seen. It did not seem “Protestant” to us in the least. It was totally foreign to us. The only thing we recognized was the Bible readings, except for the readings from the Deuterocanonicals, which evangelical Protestants don’t recognize as canonical. Everything else was strange and unfamiliar, including all the hymns that many people here consider “Protestant.” No, no.

We kept saying how neat is was to be visiting a Church that was worshipping God the way Christians did back in the early Centuries. You see, we had no idea that there ever was a Latin Mass, ever. Why would Protestants know this? We thought this Mass (which we now know is called OF) was the only way Mass had ever been done, and boy, was it different–completely and utterly different–than ANYTHING that we had ever experienced as Protestants.

I hope I am getting the idea across that the OF of the Mass does not even vaguely resemble a Protestant worship service. Maybe some of the older mainline Protestant churches (Lutheran, Methodist, etc.) have worship services that are similiar to Catholic Masses. But the majority of Protestants in the U.S. today are evangelical (Baptist, Assemblies of God, non-denominational), and I think that these people would say that Catholic Mass is not at all “Protestant.” (In fact, many of the people in these churches would deny being “Protestant” and ask you to please not use that term to describe them and their churches.)

 

[weepixie71]

Cat:

i have been to many protestant services that even use the same missal that is sitting in a catholic pew.
i went through a period of being lost. left the catholic church for a bit. i attended several services. lutherans, methodists, united church of christ, all had the same service as catholics. i also attended a baptist and an evangelical service. true these were nothing like a catholic service.
i was taught that the novus ordo mass was designed to make protestants feel welcome. in doing so, it made many catholics feel unwelcome. it made them feel like they were participating in something sinister. this caused a split, possibly costing many catholic souls.
before vatican II churches were built decidedly catholic. they had communion rails, saints statues, a choir loft, no one was allowed up at the altar but the priest and servers because laity had their place in witnessing, consecrated wine was not distributed because it was thought to be foolish to risk spilling Christ on the floor when the Holy Eucharist is enough, you could attend a catholic mass anywhere in the world and know what was going on because we had a unified language a unified mass, confession before every mass, beautiful chanting, the smell of incense… so much lost. this is just as small portion… the only thing more sad than these things lost in every mass is that a lot of catholics dont want them back. this baffles and saddens me.

i am truly happy for you. that you have a mass that makes you whole and you feel by attending you made God happy worshiping like a catholic. i really, really, am. but i come from a family that tells me how things used to be. how so much more effort went into catholic symbolisms and catholic worship. now i have the tridentine mass, and it is truly a smack in the face of the reality of what was sacrificed and lost.

so yes i speak of the novus ordo. it did hurt the unity of the catholic church and with its constant drastic changes the novus ordo, after 50 years, is still to this day dividing catholics.

 

[Frosty]

Cat:

i have been to many protestant services that even use the same missal that is sitting in a catholic pew.

Is that true? The very same Missal found in the pews of Catholic Churches? The same Missal that uses the same words at the Consecration? The same Missal that ses either the Nicene or Apostles Creed in which we say “We believe in the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church”? Amazing that Protestants would use those same prayers!

i was taught that the novus ordo mass was designed to make protestants feel welcome. in doing so, it made many catholics feel unwelcome. it made them feel like they were participating in something sinister. this caused a split, possibly costing many catholic souls.

And who exactly taught you that?
Was it the teachers you had in Catholic schools or the priests in your parish? I have been Catholic for all my life [born pre Vat.II] and never heard such balderdash until I came across forums like this or some ultra conservative blogs.

before vatican II churches were built decidedly catholic. they had communion rails, saints statues, a choir loft, no one was allowed up at the altar but the priest and servers because laity had their place in witnessing, consecrated wine was not distributed because it was thought to be foolish to risk spilling Christ on the floor when the Holy Eucharist is enough, you could attend a catholic mass anywhere in the world and know what was going on because we had a unified language a unified mass, confession before every mass, beautiful chanting, the smell of incense…so much lost. this is just as small portion… the only thing more sad than these things lost in every mass is that a lot of catholics dont want them back. this baffles and saddens me.

What is also sad is reading the same half truths over and over again ad nauseum. There are many Churches built after the 1960’s who do have statues, choir lofts, incense, votive candles, chant and yes indeedy, even the old fashioned confessionial booths. And by the way, Confessions were not always heard before every Mass. Like so much else, it depended on where one lived, the size of the parish and so on.

.

 

[Extempore]

Is that true? The very same Missal found in the pews of Catholic Churches? The same Missal that uses the same words at the Consecration? The same Missal that ses either the Nicene or Apostles Creed in which we say “We believe in the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church”? Amazing that Protestants would use those same prayers!

I can’t comment upon the Missal, but I do know that quite a few Protestant churches say the Nicene and Apostle’s Creeds using the word “Catholic” in the sense that they intend it to mean “universal.”

 

[weepixie71]

it was a long time ago but yes i do recall the cover of the missal was exactly the same as the catholic missal… they just skip over the part of the creed some even put a big X over it.

i went to catholic school. we had all notre dame nuns and they taught every class including religion. in high school we had lay teachers and religion was taught by a brother or a precious blood nun. i was taught that the pope had great concern to bring protestants back home to the catholic church and was one of the reasons that started the vatican II council.

i dont care what was built in the 60’s personally. the plans were more than likely already drawn up. today the churches are built like here today gone tomorrow, no big deal. they can sell the property to any other religion and wouldnt have to do any construction. if you dont want to see the churches are slowly looking less and less catholic so be it for you. i see it and will not go back on this. i feel that the catholic churches are being stripped just as Christ’s garments were stripped right before His crucifixion.

 

[weepixie71]

It might be - if it affects them directly. And even if it doesn’t, they have every right to speak out and express their opinions. How we respond to them - and in what Spirit - is our business.

It’s also worth remembering that, in times past, Protestants and Jews (among others) have actually helped our Church. How? Well, for example, after the Protestants under Martin Luther left, we took a good, hard look at the abuses that were going on, cleaned them up, and had the Council of Trent to nail everything down. If Luther hadn’t revolted, maybe that wouldn’t have happened.

the church is always reforming because of sinful men have always been in the church since the time of judus.

we will always have our judus’s. did not Jesus warn to beware of wolves in sheeps clothing.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Why does the pope feel the need to make Jews, Moslems, Islams, Buddists, Protestants etc. happy?

It’s because Christ’s message said to love our enemies, and we’ve sometimes done a bad job of showing love to those outside the Church. So we’re trying to show them respect and love.

 

[weepixie71]

It’s because Christ’s message said to love our enemies, and we’ve sometimes done a bad job of showing love to those outside the Church. So we’re trying to show them respect and love.

Christ also says in Luke 10:8-12

8 “If you enter a town and it welcomes you, eat whatever is set before you. 9 Heal the sick, and tell them, ‘The Kingdom of God is near you now.’ 10 But if a town refuses to welcome you, go out into its streets and say, 11 ‘We wipe even the dust of your town from our feet to show that we have abandoned you to your fate. And know this—the Kingdom of God is near!’ 12 I assure you, even wicked Sodom will be better off than such a town on judgment day.

the jews do not want catholics praying for their conversions to catholicism. but if we know the truth what choice do we have? i feel for the jews, they have a sad history but let’s not forget we too have a sad history. we too have been martyred and tortured for our beliefs. we can not be led by the nose, bullied, and made to feel apologetic for our faith by any religion.

 

[Volodymyr_988]

the church is always reforming because of sinful men have always been in the church since the time of judus.

we will always have our judus’s. did not Jesus warn to beware of wolves in sheeps clothing.

The brothers and the priest at the Priory of St. John which is north of Kickapoo celebrate the Mass according to the 1962 Missal. If you want the Old Mass in your area.

St. Mary of the Woods in Princeville has a Latin Mass. It is a half an hour away from Peoria to the northwest. (309) 385-4370

 

[colocat]

It’s not a case of humoring other faiths, or somehow compromising or diminishing our own faith in the process. It’s more a matter of reaching out in christ-like love to all other people, regardless of their faith tradition, or lack of it. And wouldn’t Jesus expect that of us Catholics? I think so. I am so glad that the vast majority of Catholics have set aside the old attitude that we’re better than all the rest. If that attitude had been pervasive when I converted, I wouldn’t have converted. When we reach out to others, it forces us to know and understand and explain our own holy Catholic faith even better.

 

[weepixie71]

The brothers and the priest at the Priory of St. John which is north of Kickapoo celebrate the Mass according to the 1962 Missal. If you want the Old Mass in your area.

St. Mary of the Woods in Princeville has a Latin Mass. It is a half an hour away from Peoria to the northwest. (309) 385-4370

yes i go there when fr driscoll doesnt have it in a chapel at osf hospital. you wont find info on that mass online because the bishop will not give fr driscoll permission to advertise it. i just found out about it because i nun told me about it when she came to my room to give me communion. i was in the hosp saying my rosary w/ my mantilla on my head since i was not able to attend mass. if i did not have my mantilla on, she more than likely never would have thought to tell me about the tridentine mass in the hospital and i never would have known about it. just think of the timing. it takes 17min to say a rosary and she had all day to distribute communion. God works in wonderful ways!!!

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Christ also says in Luke 10:8-12

8 “If you enter a town and it welcomes you, eat whatever is set before you. 9 Heal the sick, and tell them, ‘The Kingdom of God is near you now.’ 10 But if a town refuses to welcome you, go out into its streets and say, 11 ‘We wipe even the dust of your town from our feet to show that we have abandoned you to your fate. And know this—the Kingdom of God is near!’ 12 I assure you, even wicked Sodom will be better off than such a town on judgment day.

the jews do not want catholics praying for their conversions to catholicism. but if we know the truth what choice do we have? i feel for the jews, they have a sad history but let’s not forget we too have a sad history. we too have been martyred and tortured for our beliefs. we can not be led by the nose, bullied, and made to feel apologetic for our faith by any religion.

I agree we should pray for their conversion. But I don’t see much point in going on and on and on about how evil and despicable they are for killing Christ. We can be nice to them and shake their hands when introduced, for example.

 

[Contarini]

Why does the pope feel the need to make Jews, Moslems, Islams, Buddists, Protestants etc. happy?

That’s not the main concern. Primarily it’s a question of truth. If you don’t recognize truth, beauty, and goodness when you see it, you are sinning against God.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Well, for example, after the Protestants under Martin Luther left, we took a good, hard look at the abuses that were going on, cleaned them up, and had the Council of Trent to nail everything down. If Luther hadn’t revolted, maybe that wouldn’t have happened.

That’s actually one of my biggest grievances against Luther. Medieval Catholicism had its problems, but from my perspective *both *Protestant and Catholic “Reformations” were cures that turned out to be worse than the disease.

Edwin

 

[otjm]

It is because we to a great part do not want to appear to be judgemental and prejudiced, so we accept all, no matter wnat it is.

I don’t know how the Church chose to follow this path, but in accepting everything we in effect deny what the Church really is. And that is a dangerous road to be on. A very dangerous road indeed…

Perhaps you do not want to appear judgemental and prejudiced. The Church in its offical capacity doesn’t seem to mind calling a spade a spade. It may be that you want it to issue anathemas, and given the fact that it issued a whole lot of them since the Protestant revolt, and it appears that they didn’t do a whole lot of good (more people became Protestants, rather than fewer), most people might come to the conclusion that the route of anathmas wasn’t particularly productive in terms of healing breaches.

The Church has not accepted “everything”; but just in case you are not paying attention, you should read up on what the Church had to say when it was invited to speak to the Anglican/Episcopalian conference of recent months. The official representatives were not rude in their remarks, but neither were they willing to pull their punches.

 

[otjm]

This, of course, raises the issue of martyrdom which is seldom addressed in a modern context.

My question or rather, concern about the original topic is this: How long can truth and error dialogue before the former takes on elements of the latter? Is it worth the risk?

To quote the user Ottavani in another thread, should the Church be concerned with reconciling to world to itself or reconciling itself to the world?

I think the former goal has always been the goal of the Church. The latter is … something else. Something new and something other than Catholic.

And that is a common misperception; that the Church is trying to conform itself to the world. John 23rd’s agenda was to get the Church out of its seige mentality and speak to the world in terms the world could understand. and there was and is nothing wrong with realizing that we are not speaking to a current issue, but to a pst issue and we need to refocus. A prime example is the shift that John Paul 2 gave when he approached the whole issue of sexuality - something that the world is in dire need of hearing - and instead of couching it in terms of neo-scholastic philosophy, he approached it in terms of personalism and phenomenology - approaches that the world understands. The world may not understand the depth of the Catholic Churhc’s view on sexuality, but speaking in terms that the world can understand is going to go a lot further than speaking in terms that appeal to a medeival philosopher. The moral rule is still the same; the language of presenting it is different. And that is what JOhn 23rd was hoping for - a renewal of the Church, not a revision of it. And that is what the Church officially has been and is doing - as both John Paul 2 and Benedict 16 have been carrying out.

It is altogether too easy to confuse what some theologian is spouting, or wwhat is going on in a diocese or a parish, with what the Church is doing in its offical capacity. It is also true that much of what the Church does in its offical capacity isn’t seen much by the rest of the “people in the pews”, because that is not where the Church is operating in terms of ecumenical relations.

 

[otjm]

so how far should we go to keep the peace? would you suggest our pope to kiss the kahran ?

You are confused because you presumed the act meant something it didn’t. It was not done for your benefit, and we may all agree it was perhaps not the wisest of decisions. However, it was not done to keep the peace. It was done as an expression of respect, somehting that is nsown in its absence to the one who acted.

should we take a mass that we know pleases God and change it to make protestants more comfortable?

that red herring is so old, it doesn’t even attract alley cats. I have yet to meet any Protestant who is more comfortable because of the Mass changes; byut people keep dragging this charge out as if there was some substance to it. Issues about changes in the Mass go back to the time of Pius 12th; the issue was being studied back then and the Protestants had nothing to do with it.

should we let jews determine who is excommunicated or not?

Why would anyone ask such a question, since the Jews have nothing to do with the process?

we as catholics have an obligation to preach the truth for we are the only religion who has the full truth. we do not need to change.

Ignorance is bliss. But then, perhaps you are smarter than the current pope, as well as the previous one. I, for one, know that I am not, and I also know they both fully backed the changes that the Council wanted to make, and both worked, and B16 is still working, to fully implement those changes. Maybe he knows something you don’t?