Pope Francis and Ramadan

[bach90]

I'm not contesting the substance of your post, but there is one pet peeve I have that I'd like to bring up. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is only slightly above scrap paper when it comes to being the official, final word on anything. The Catechism is only a teaching tool, nothing more: "It is meant to encourage and assist in the writing of new local catechism, which take into account various situations and cultures, while carefully preserving the unity of faith and fidelity to catholic doctrine" (John Paul II, Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum, 3).

That's not to say don't use The Catechism, but the authority of a phrase in The Catechism comes from the inter-text. The section on heresy, for example, is a quotation of the definition of heresy which is given in Canon 751 in the Code of Canon Law. The Code trumps The Catechism; consequently, it is better - if you are intending to give the Catholic Church's definition on the definition of heresy - to quote the section you did, but attribute it to Canon 751.

The catechism is an invaluable teaching tool. It's not meant to go into deep seminary-level theology.

I quote the Catechism because I rarely find 2 Roman Catholics that agree on the same thing down the line. I don't discuss people's personal opinions of their faith tradition (whether RC, EO, etc.), but what their Church teaches.

As far as the CCC, JP II was rather insistent that it was authoritative. So I go with the CCC as saying what the RCC teaches.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church's faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium. I declare it to be a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith. May it serve the renewal to which the Holy Spirit ceaselessly calls the Church of God, the Body of Christ, on her pilgrimage to the undiminished light of the kingdom! - Fidei Depositum V

 

[WarriorAngel]

encourging to practice a false religion is in itself is not necessary, we should be converting not wanting others to continue paganism. The early Church would be furious.

But the early Church didnt have the era we have.
There were 3 religious types.
Judaism [which Christians were considered a Judaic sect - actually]
Christians
Pagans.

In todays world - we have Muslims [formed in 622 AD] - Protestants of many varieties with a lot of invincible ignorance, Jews, many flavors of paganism.

And the Church must acclimate her ministry and conversions accordingly.

They are not considered equal - nor are they considered correct.
They are considered very ignorant... because truly - they are.

Christ spoke to the Gentiles, and whoever else... but mind you - He was fairly congenial to ppl. It was His Presence that caused folks to come to Him to seek answers... to follow Him.
He didnt go up to ppl and say 'Hey listen - this is how it is...'
They came to Him. So it is now - with prayer and fasting and sowing gentle seeds - they want to know more.

Dont worry - there are conversions happening - al the time in the Islamic world. No need to slap them around and ignore their presence in order to convert them.

 

[Irenaeus]

And the Church must acclimate her ministry and conversions accordingly.

They are not considered equal - nor are they considered correct.
They are considered very ignorant... because truly - they are.

RomanRite's instincts are fundamentally good, but they do not take into account legitimate developments around the Vatican Council. It is one thing to say that error has no rights. That is absolutely true. Yet it is also true that persons have rights, and for an act of faith to be integral, it must be free.

Wishing a Muslim Happy Ramadan isn't the same thing as saying to someone on their way to a drug binge "have a good time!" The basic virtue here, that of religion, or the sincere attempt to offer right worship to God, is there. It is that we acknowledge. So while we may wish a Muslim "Happy Ramadan," or a Jew "Happy Passover," we are acknowledging the rectitude of their religious instinct, not the rightness or wrongness of the orientation of their belief.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Your over friendliess may be motivated by fear, while my over scrutiny may be motivated by my immense hate for Islam. I've recently discovered that the CC's view of Islam is a stumbling block for me. I hate it, I don't consider it to be heretical Christianity, I don't consider Muslims my brothers and sisters, and I can't stand the fact that JP II kiss the Qu'Ran, whatever the context of it might be.

To me, we shouldn't encourage or show respect to any false religion, and my brothers and sisters are in Christ Jesus -- those that do the will of the Father. The attacks on my country, faith, and true brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus across the globe doesn't help to change my feelings.

I strongly dislike and disagree with Muslims and i read the Quarn in part and the Haddiths and let me say - i certainly and strongly disagree with a lot of their teachings [system] ---- but Christ said to love our enemies. So i pray for them.
IN enemies are those in Islam willing to kill infidels.
However; as i said previously, Christ treated everyone congenially. He only got irked rarely. Still, i could see Christ talking to Muslims - just as He did Samaritans, Gentiles and whoever else. Yes, He even had Pharisee friends... so it depended on the intent of the heart of Pharisee - that He could read - that would set Him off to call them out.
We dont read hearts - so being kind is a must.

As for the Catechism - they do not speak they have equality.
They are more or less wanting to convey what is in common - and from there - we can find it easier to love our enemies - pray for them [to convert] and forgive them - even when thats hard.
Remembering Christ asked for forgiveness of those who crucified Him...

Its not easy.

But remember these ppl were misled [yes by pride] - by a man who made them feel important to God. They were sons and daughters of Abraham. Muhammad made use of their isolation - soothed their ego. Thats a big milestone for them to overcome and come home to Jesus - Who already adopted them back - they just didnt know that.

Essentially - hate the sin [heresy] but love the sinners. Like i said - its not easy. Trust me. I have distrust for many.

 

[WarriorAngel]

RomanRite's instincts are fundamentally good, but they do not take into account legitimate developments around the Vatican Council. It is one thing to say that error has no rights. That is absolutely true. Yet it is also true that persons have rights, and for an act of faith to be integral, it must be free.

Wishing a Muslim Happy Ramadan isn't the same thing as saying to someone on their way to a drug binge "have a good time!" The basic virtue here, that of religion, or the sincere attempt to offer right worship to God, is there. It is that we acknowledge. So while we may wish a Muslim "Happy Ramadan," or a Jew "Happy Passover," we are acknowledging the rectitude of their religious instinct, not the rightness or wrongness of the orientation of their belief.

I like that - instinct.
Tis true - every human from birth [who is mentally capable] has a draw to God.
Unfortunately so much misinformation [false teachings] have abounded. PPl are totally clueless where to go to get it right.
But wanting to get it right - is there - at least.

 

[judechild]

As far as the CCC, JP II was rather insistent that it was authoritative. So I go with the CCC as saying what the RCC teaches.

Yes, he did say "valid and legitimate instrument" - but that's just it; it's an instrument. He then goes on to state its purpose, which is what I quoted in my last post - only a teaching tool, especially for the drafting of local catechisms. On the hierarchy of authoritative documents, The Catechism is pretty low. If Canon Law changes, the Catechism's definition is outdated - not the other way around. In fact, The Catechism may be edited without changing anything authoritative (this happened in quite a few places in the drafting of the 2nd Edition). Too many Catholics use The Catechism like the fundamentalist uses the Bible, and it's a sign of having done a bit of research to use the more authoritative document (to put it another way, quoting The Catechism is like quoting Wikipedia. It has the character of being a bit lazy - since anybody can read the Wikipedia article; they don't need a url to it).

If you quote Canon Law, then you are quoting what the Church teaches on the subject of heresy (since the section you quoted is entirely taken from The Code). Since The Code is the more authoritative document, it is better to quote it rather than The Catechism.

I quote the Catechism because I rarely find 2 Roman Catholics that agree on the same thing down the line. I don't discuss people's personal opinions of their faith tradition (whether RC, EO, etc.), but what their Church teaches.

The trouble is, Catholics can disagree with something in the Catechism and not necessarily be disagreeing with the Church. For example, the current edition of The Catechism deleted a clause in its Article on the Eighth Commandment (specifically 2483).

The First Edition said: "To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error someone who has the right to know the truth."

The Second Edition has: "To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error."

The Catholic may legitimately disagree with the second edition's formulation, and hold to the first edition's, and that would not necessarily be against the teaching of the Church - it's only against this particular formulation. That is why the Catechism was primarily addressed to Bishops, priests, and catechists; it's meant for people who are already somewhat versed in Catholic teaching (and if it helps others on the way, well and good; John Paul acknowledged that too).

 

[judechild]

The catechism is an invaluable teaching tool. It's not meant to go into deep seminary-level theology.

Yes, it's a teaching tool; that's what I'm saying. If you have the choice between Britannica and Wikipedia, though, it's better to go with Britannica. In addition, many Catholics are using The Catechism as the source of Catholic teaching - as in, if you deviate from The Catechism in any way, then you are outside Church teaching. That is not true because it is only a teaching tool; it is meant to express the truths of the Faith, but it is not, itself, the truths of the faith. It is not deep seminary-level theology to acknowledge that there is a difference in authority between a Council Document, The Code, and The Catechism.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

Imprudent, inane, and unwise. This is not how the worldwide faithful construes it. To elaborate what I am saying --- Meaning they don't construe this as a mere 'Merry Christmas' or 'Happy New Year'; rather they hear this and think: Oh, Francis I approves and thinks Ramadan and the Mohammedan religion is just peachy and a-okay to believe; to pick beliefs from as if one was taking samplings of food from a smorgasbord of beliefs and such.

That is what most folks think when they hear this. It does nothing to convert these folks. To them, it is a sign of weakness on the part of Christians and the West and a sign to them, that we tacitly acknowledge their religion as superior.

This is a game of souls; it's spiritual warfare. And the Mohammedans are in it for keeps. Sadly, it's a real darn shame that many Christians aren't. Or they let their naivete cloud their judgment . . .

 

[Gnarwhal]

I find Pope Francis' compassion to be compelling.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

So where does it compel you to or towards, Mr Congent . . . ?

 

[MKJ]

I quote the Catechism because I rarely find 2 Roman Catholics that agree on the same thing down the line. I don't discuss people's personal opinions of their faith tradition (whether RC, EO, etc.), but what their Church teaches.

Well, this is part of the difficulty - often when they disagree, both may be correct according to Catholic teaching.

Simplifying the issue may be appropriate depending on the situation. But it will not give a more accurate understanding of the subject.

 

[MikeK]

I strongly dislike and disagree with Muslims...

Why do you strongly dislike Muslims?

 

[Luther073082]

My only concern is he said something to the effect of he trusts the fast of Ramidan will bear much spiritual fruit.

Can a fast in the worship of a false God bear spiritual fruit?

Other then that I've honestly had a good experience with every Muslim I've personally met and hold no ill will against them.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

. . .
Can a fast in the worship of a false God bear spiritual fruit?

. . .

Indeed. As Psalm 95, 5. says: 'For the Gods of the Gentiles are Demons.' And being as Allah has no characteristics of a our God, but is immune to reason and treats his followers more as if he were demon; permitting them to satisfy their blood-lust as well as fleshly-lust.

Allah is the pagan Moon God of the Arab's ancient heathen religion; the last of their idols, after having gotten rid of all their other idols, whom they've held up as their sole deity. One cannot hold up an idol and claim that he is the same as our God. One cannot do the same with Monotheistic Hindoos or Sikhs either. Similarly, those sects, like that of the Mohammedan's, have a concept of a God so vastly foreign and different, that it isn't the same one. Not by a long shot.

A curious note, that both in Arabic culture and in Aztec, the Moon represented their false demon-gods; yet in the book of the Apocalypse, our Blessed Mother Mary (also in the image of our Lady of Guadalupe) is standing atop a moon trodding it under foot, defeating it, and shewing the victory of Her Son our Holy Saviour Jesus Christ over it. Just some food for thought!

 

[LoAmmi]

Indeed. As Psalm 95, 5. says: 'For the Gods of the Gentiles are Demons.' And being as Allah has no characteristics of a our God, but is immune to reason and treats his followers more as if he were demon; permitting them to satisfy their blood-lust as well as fleshly-lust.

Your Psalm 96 (I assume a typo here) says demons? I'm always interested when there are different translations going around. The one I've got says "are nothing" and another says "are idols", contrasting them being nothing with the Holy One creating the Heavens. Very interesting!

 

[Luther073082]

Indeed. As Psalm 95, 5. says: 'For the Gods of the Gentiles are Demons.' And being as Allah has no characteristics of a our God, but is immune to reason and treats his followers more as if he were demon; permitting them to satisfy their blood-lust as well as fleshly-lust.

Allah is the pagan Moon God of the Arab's ancient heathen religion; the last of their idols, after having gotten rid of all their other idols, whom they've held up as their sole deity. One cannot hold up an idol and claim that he is the same as our God. One cannot do the same with Monotheistic Hindoos or Sikhs either. Similarly, those sects, like that of the Mohammedan's, have a concept of a God so vastly foreign and different, that it isn't the same one. Not by a long shot.

A curious note, that both in Arabic culture and in Aztec, the Moon represented their false demon-gods; yet in the book of the Apocalypse, our Blessed Mother Mary (also in the image of our Lady of Guadalupe) is standing atop a moon trodding it under foot, defeating it, and shewing the victory of Her Son our Holy Saviour Jesus Christ over it. Just some food for thought!

So if what he said is heresy, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that what he said was more of a slip of the tongue that he said without thinking it through rather then a well thought out statement.

But say that it is, does he just need to confess to his confessor or does this cause deeper problems?

For the record I like your subtitle, I just think it looks cooler in Greek letters.

 

[LoAmmi]

Luther,

Do you believe that me taking part in Shabbat observation or the festivals can bring forth spiritual fruit or am I also worshiping a false deity? Do you believe that only Christians can bear fruit? Honest question, please don't read more into it than it just being a question.

 

[Luther073082]

Luther,

Do you believe that me taking part in Shabbat observation or the festivals can bring forth spiritual fruit or am I also worshiping a false deity? Do you believe that only Christians can bear fruit? Honest question, please don't read more into it than it just being a question.

Yes, if there is only one true God only the worship of the true God can bear any true spiritual fruit.

I wouldn't mind him saying Happy Ramadan or saying that he sends greetings to Muslims everywhere as they celebrate the Ramadan fast and the church is with them in trying to seek better lives for themselves and their families. (As Christians should be behind anyone trying to live a more peaceable and secure life.)

But the bit about the spiritual fruit is what sets off alarm bells in my Lutheran ears.

 

[LoAmmi]

Yes, if there is only one true God only the worship of the true God can bear any true spiritual fruit.

If someone worships the true G-d, but are mistaken about things, do they count toward bearing fruit?


Aside: My mind keeps wanting to call you Lex. Must have Superman on the mind for some reason.

 

[Tallguy88]

Yes, if there is only one true God only the worship of the true God can bear any true spiritual fruit.

I wouldn't mind him saying Happy Ramadan or saying that he sends greetings to Muslims everywhere as they celebrate the Ramadan fast and the church is with them in trying to seek better lives for themselves and their families. (As Christians should be behind anyone trying to live a more peaceable and secure life.)

But the bit about the spiritual fruit is what sets off alarm bells in my Lutheran ears.

Do you not believe that God can use a Jew's (or Muslim's) prayers and send grace to them?