Posted on 08/10/2002 6:41:37 AM PDT by narses
"I kind of see your your point, if I look at it in a New World Order attitude, i.e. a kinder, gentler society."
Thanks, I think. ;-)
"However, I cannot view it in the same light when I recall the millions of martyrs, who gave their lives rather than acknowledge false religions."
What do you mean, they didn't acknowledge false religions? Of course they did. And they proposed Catholicism against them. Nonetheless, when Catholics had little power, we did not tear down the shrines to the gods. We refused to bow to them. And many Catholics were killed.
I doubt that any of these folks would have come to Assisi if they'd have had any inkling that they would be targeted for conversion. Thus, they would have never come into contact with him, they would have never heard his words firsthand. Frankly, I think it was a good thing that these folks were in the presence of the Holy Father and were exposed to him.
Sometimes you gotta give a little to get a little. Or a lot.
sitetest
By the way, you should try Catholicguy's link. Here is a critical point made therein:
"As Fr. Morelli notes, the Pope has never said, 'Pray to your false god', but 'Pray as best as you can' in following your conscience which can always be further illuminated by the true God. Fr. Morselli makes an excellent point in noting that 'the invitation to unbelievers to pray is NOT a formal participation in an act of false religion, but it is a formal invitation to be religious, to follow natural law.' Moreover, as all good missionaries know, 'the first step to conversion is the observance of natural law.'"
sitetest
I agree with you; the martyrs' acknowledged the pagans' religions to be false and they gave their lives in doing so for the one, true religion.
So why invite them?
It's more than a stretch to say that that was an act of false religion.
Especially, from what I could see, the Holy Father just watched. Watching all the supplicants from all over the world offering their words for peace, under the guidance of the Vicar of Christ.
I kinda like that picture.
sitetest
"So why invite them?"
Perhaps to demonstrate that religion is not meant to be an instigation for war.
Perhaps, also, to give personal witness to these folks, himself.
sitetest
Do you realize what you just said? Yes, again, I agree with you.
Imams, patriarchs, monks and rabbis from around the world joined the pontiff on Thursday to pray for peace in a ceremony designed to proclaim that religion must never be used to justify violence.
I dunno, that sounds to me like a religous act. If it was, was it Catholic?
"Could HH not be in error on this call?"
You know that it's important to me to try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. Why would I deny that to our Holy Father?
To me, it isn't that close a call.
sitetest
"...the Holy Father just watched."
Ah, a little taken out of context, no? Here is the rest of what I said:
"Watching all the supplicants from all over the world offering their words for peace, under the guidance of the Vicar of Christ."
sitetest
I'm sorry, but, IMHO, encouraging "all the supplicants from all over the world offering their words for peace" within their own false religions is not proper guidance by the Vicar of Christ.
It had been my understanding that prayers were offered separately in the separate areas provided for each group.
In any event, my own impressions taken from these events were not that all religions are as good as each other, or that all religions, in and of themselves, can lead to salvation.
No, the impressions that I take are that all religions are remarkably inferior to Catholicism.
My impression from this event is that each religion may hold a shard of the truth but only in Catholicism is the fullness of truth found. The symbolism of the Orthodox patriarch and the Anglican bishop sitting on the pope's right and left were, to me, devastatingly striking. What is whole is the Catholic Church. What is nearly whole are the schismatic Orthodox. What is a bit further are the once-Catholic Anglicans. And so on.
My impression is that the small truth within any one of these religions, especially the non-Christian and non-Jewish, needs its fulfillment in Catholicism.
That's how it all struck me. But, hey, that's just me.
In any event, I guess I just trust the pope that he did the right thing. I'm not the intellectual he is. I'm not the theologian he is. I'm not the pastor he is. I'm not the mystic he is. I'm certainly not the Catholic he is. Even in my own feeble mind, I can half-figure my way to understanding this. Why do I think he didn't get the whole way there?
sitetest
"I'm sorry, but, IMHO, encouraging 'all the supplicants from all over the world offering their words for peace' within their own false religions is not proper guidance by the Vicar of Christ."
Well, that's your opinion. I guess the pope had a different opinion.
sitetest
Which church? and what do you mean by "truth"?
Teaching is an important part of what we do
By whose authority do you teach? Whose interpretation do you use? Methodist? Presbyterian? Lutheran, and if so which branch?
I apologize for asking so many questions but it is quite confusing to me. Why are there so many protestant churches? Who decides on which interpretation is to be used? How is this decided? What happens when there is disagreement as to interpretation?
My family tells me that my first sentence was phrased in the form of a question.
Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't that rather go against the intent of Asissi?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.