I also humbly submit that, for the observance of the sacred rite of Holy Baptism, we do not practice immersion, pouring, or sprinkling.
I propose we baptise by spraying....
Posted on 03/30/2003 12:41:35 PM PST by NYer
By Stephen Hand
Back in 1999, on the 14th of May, according to the Patriarch of the Chaldeans, at the end of an audience between the Pope and some delegates of the Islamic Shiite and Sunni factions, the Pope bowed as “a sign of respect” toward a copy of the Koran which was presented to him as a gift. When the book was officially “presented to him,” the Pope, perhaps a bit perplexed concerning the appropriate protocol for such an official gesture, kissed it; again, as a “sign of respect toward the 34 million followers of Islam”. The event was reported by the Fides news service. It turned out to be more controversial a sign than the Pope and Vatican ever expected, since both Neomodernist and Integrist reactionaries pounced on it. The former to suggest that all religions were essentially one, and the latter to suggest that the Pope had, well, er, left the Faith.
Both, of course, were utterly wrong, and both---who are temperamentally and psychologically joined at the hip in not a few ways---refused to look long at the Church’s actual teachings, the texts which clearly explain what the Church’s attitude toward other religions is-----and is not.
It is the reaction of the latter which concerns us here.
Every religion, sadly, has its Pharisees, the ones who are more royal than the king, the (only) “true” believers. It is an attitude, a psychological type, which comes in degrees of severity and is tied up with legalism, a preference for the letter as opposed to the spirit of the law. What the Taliban is to Islam, Integrism approximately is to Catholicism.
Pharisees, thinking themselves the only true observers of the law, love to debate, to bait and trap the unwary victim, as they tried to do with our Lord on many an occasion. This attitude finds its logical completion in the Essenes who broke off entirely from the Temple (unlike Jesus, His Mother and St. Joseph) and fled to the desert proclaiming themselves the true temple, the remnant of Israel. They are, it is obvious, seldom aware of the pride which feeds such behavior or the logs in their own eyes.
In Catholicism, if the Neo-modernists are the Saducees, i.e., the rationalists who tend to doubt articles of Faith, then the Integrists are very clearly our modern Pharisees, the ones who fancy themselves the true interpreters of the “fathers” and of the letter of the law.
The Pharisee wants an easy, hyper-logical world, a world of airtight Yes-No compartments, where people are either “in” or “out”. In Our Lord’s day they considered Jesus lax with sinners and heathen, dubious in doctrine, fickle regarding the inviolable law. They viewed him with suspicion and ultimately felt he had to be removed altogether. They preferred a religion where the question of the "spirit," or the heart of the law----the ultimate telos / goal to which the law tends----was not welcome, despite the warnings of the major and minor prophets. For the Pharisee it is easy: The woman sinned against her husband? Stone her. The Pope kissed the Koran? Throw him out, follow the law. Such is the spirit of the Pharisee, then and now.
The Pharisee is more comfortable with executing judgment than mercy which is considered a complicating factor. He prefers a simple world where one always knows what to do. That makes debating easier; and our modern Pharisee loves to debate. He wakes up in the morning and aims straightway for the computer to either engage the debate or aid his fellows in it. His religion often exists in chat rooms or on email lists where he seeks to draw the first blood. Mercy is like an ‘X’ in the equation of justice and makes the Pharisee uncomfortable. Just the same with love and the kind of religion as described in Isaiah 58 or Matt 5-7. Such concepts complicate their neat rule book (though most of these guys have never been trained in Catholic theology and hermeneutics).
The Pope Kissed the Koran
The Pope kissed the Koran. Our new version Pharisee immediately salivates. He is ready to pounce and add such an indictable emblem to his files. And what does it prove? That the Pope is a secret Muslim maybe? That the Pope doesn’t believe in Jesus Christ maybe? That the Pope is a relativist, perhaps? A syncretist for sure? That all religions are one in the Pope’s mind? The Pope also kisses the ground upon landing in various countries on pastoral visits. A secret pantheist?
The Pope, of course, teaches the very opposite everywhere. The facts are well known, if one would take the time to learn. Yet the Pharisee has a penchant for turning ones eyes from anything that will reveal his opinion to be an absurdity. Even authoritative texts matter little if they can be simply brushed under the rug of bigotry.
Yet facts are stubborn. The gesture of the Pope by no means indicates syncretism, relativism, or anything of the sort. Cynical Integrists simply seek to make hay of it, as they do of everything else. It is the way of the Pharisee. That way they sell their papers to the gullible. They would rather not believe that the kiss was merely a gesture, as one would bow before a king, or a President, or even kiss the Pope’s ring. They would rather put the worst and most absurd construction on it, like with everything else. Had they been there they would have sent the Three Wise Men---heathens---packing; the Roman Centurion whom our Lord helped too (pagan). And the good Samaritan would have been viewed very simply as a dismal heretic. I know rigroist Feeneyites who must first baptise (in their minds) the good thief on the Cross before they will concur with our Lord's pronouncement concerning him. Legalism...
I adduce the following texts, from innumerable others, not for debate, but to show those confused by them that the Pope’s teaching is nothing like the accusations and framing of the Integrists.
For the Holy Father, dialogue does not substitute for evangelism/mission, but is a part of that mission of evangelism, divorced from neither love nor truth.
The emphasis is mine throughout below.
NOSTRA AETATE
2. From ancient times down to the present, there is found among various peoples a certain perception of that hidden power which hovers over the course of things and over the events of human history; at times some indeed have come to the recognition of a Supreme Being, or even of a Father. This perception and recognition penetrates their lives with a profound religious sense. Religions, however, that are bound up with an advanced culture have struggled to answer the same questions by means of more refined concepts and a more developed language. Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with love and trust. Again, Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination. Likewise, other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing "ways," comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself.(4)
55. Inter-religious dialogue is a part of the Church's evangelizing mission. Understood as a method and means of mutual knowledge and enrichment, dialogue is not in opposition to the mission ad gentes; indeed, it has special links with that mission and is one of its expressions . This mission, in fact, is addressed to those who do not know Christ and his Gospel, and who belong for the most part to other religions. In Christ, God calls all peoples to himself and he wishes to share with them the fullness of his revelation and love. He does not fail to make himself present in many ways, not only to individuals but also to entire peoples through their spiritual riches, of which their religions are the main and essential expression, even when they contain "gaps, insufficiencies and errors."(98) All of this has been given ample emphasis by the Council and the subsequent Magisterium, without detracting in any way from the fact that salvation comes from Christ and that dialogue does not dispense from evangelization.(99)
In the light of the economy of salvation, the Church sees no conflict between proclaiming Christ and engaging in interreligious dialogue. Instead, she feels the need to link the two in the context of her mission ad gentes . These two elements must maintain both their intimate connection and their distinctiveness ; therefore they should not be confused, manipulated or regarded as identical, as though they were interchangeable
CDF’s Dominus Iesus: See CDF document here
4. The Church's constant missionary proclamation is endangered today by relativistic theories which seek to justify religious pluralism, not only de facto but also de iure (or in principle). As a consequence, it is held that certain truths have been superseded; for example, the definitive and complete character of the revelation of Jesus Christ, the nature of Christian faith as compared with that of belief in other religions, the inspired nature of the books of Sacred Scripture, the personal unity between the Eternal Word and Jesus of Nazareth, the unity of the economy of the Incarnate Word and the Holy Spirit, the unicity and salvific universality of the mystery of Jesus Christ, the universal salvific mediation of the Church, the inseparability — while recognizing the distinction — of the kingdom of God, the kingdom of Christ, and the Church, and the subsistence of the one Church of Christ in the Catholic Church.
6. Therefore, the theory of the limited, incomplete, or imperfect character of the revelation of Jesus Christ, which would be complementary to that found in other religions, is contrary to the Church's faith. Such a position would claim to be based on the notion that the truth about God cannot be grasped and manifested in its globality and completeness by any historical religion, neither by Christianity nor by Jesus Christ.
7. ...Thus, theological faith (the acceptance of the truth revealed by the One and Triune God) is often identified with belief in other religions, which is religious experience still in search of the absolute truth and still lacking assent to God who reveals himself. This is one of the reasons why the differences between Christianity and the other religions tend to be reduced at times to the point of disappearance.
Most critical to our concern:
8. The hypothesis of the inspired value of the sacred writings of other religions is also put forward. Certainly, it must be recognized that there are some elements in these texts which may be de facto instruments by which countless people throughout the centuries have been and still are able today to nourish and maintain their life-relationship with God. Thus, as noted above, the Second Vatican Council, in considering the customs, precepts, and teachings of the other religions, teaches that “although differing in many ways from her own teaching, these nevertheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men”.23
The Church's tradition, however, reserves the designation of inspired texts to the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments, since these are inspired by the Holy Spirit.24 Taking up this tradition, the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation of the Second Vatican Council states: “For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (cf. Jn 20:31; 2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:19-21; 3:15-16), they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself”.25 These books “firmly, faithfully, and without error, teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures”.26
Nevertheless, God, who desires to call all peoples to himself in Christ and to communicate to them the fullness of his revelation and love, “does not fail to make himself present in many ways, not only to individuals, but also to entire peoples through their spiritual riches, of which their religions are the main and essential expression even when they contain ‘gaps, insufficiencies and errors'”.27 Therefore, the sacred books of other religions, which in actual fact direct and nourish the existence of their followers, receive from the mystery of Christ the elements of goodness and grace which they contain.
It is very clear, then, that neither the Pope nor Vatican II promotes doctrinal relativism, much less syncretism. This is why the neo-modernists consider the Pope a veritable inquisition. They can read. Yet the joyless Integrist can be counted on to always put the worst possible construction on any event or text (even if they usually prefer to simply ignore than compare texts). Thus they alleviate some of their anxiety for airtight security, even if it means fleeing from the vulnerability and suffering of the cross in our time. The Integrist is never so gleeful as when in [the diversion of] debate. Those of us who have known them intimately consider this one of their most striking and constant characteristics. To debate them is to feed their pride. Better to sincerely pray for them often. It is tragic beyond words when truth itself is inconsequential to the act of debating.
The Church, then, rejects nothing which is good, true or holy in other religions, but condemns all syncretistic theology as it did with Frs. Anthony de Mello's and Tissa Balasuriya's writings; see also the CDF's warnings to the bishops of India regarding syncretism and erroneous christologies; also its warnings about eastern meditation, etc.
Yes, but we were not talking about Hindus.
So do the Hindu Jainists. Does that mean they are worshipping the same god? How about the Babylonians who worship Marduk, creator of the earth and sky from the slain body of Tiamat?
This isn't just a theoretical issue, since Allah has more historical ties to Marduk than he does to Judeo-Christianity (before Mohammed came along, there were no connections whatsoever between Allah and the Jewish God).
Who are the Hindu Jainists???
The name "Allah" is used by middle eastern Christians as well. The Moslem Allah has no historical ties to Marduk... can you site the information you have documenting this?
I will state again. The Moslems believe in ONE God who created all. From there they go off the rails.
The number of prophets sent by God is said to have been about 124,000, and of apostles, 315. Of the former, 22 are mentioned by name in the Koran — such as Adam, Noe, Abraham, Moses, Jesus.
According to the Sunni, the Prophets and Apostles were sinless and superior to the angels, and they had the power of performing miracles. Mohammedan angelology and demonology are almost wholly based on later Jewish and early Christian traditions. The angels are believed to be free from all sin; they neither eat nor drink; there is no distinction of sex among them. They are, as a rule, invisible, save to animals, although, at times, they appear in human form. The principal angels are: Gabriel, the guardian and communicator of God's revelation to man; Michael, the guardian of men; Azrail, the angel of death, whose duty is to receive men's souls when they die; and Israfil, the angel of the Resurrection.
In addition to these there are the Seraphim, who surround the throne of God, constantly chanting His praises; the Secretaries, who record the actions of men; the Observers, who spy on every word and deed of mankind; the Travellers, whose duty it is to traverse the whole earth in order to know whether, and when, men utter the name of God; the Angels of the Seven Planets; the Angels who have charge of hell; and a countless multitude of heavenly beings who fill all space. The chief devil is Iblis, who, like his numerous companions, was once the nearest to God, but was cast out for refusing to pay homage to Adam at the command of God. These devils are harmful both to the souls and to the bodies of men, although their evil influence is constantly checked by Divine interference.
Besides angels and devils, there are also jinns, or genii, creatures of fire, able to eat, drink, propagate, and die; some good, others bad, but all capable of future salvation and damnation.
God rewards good and punishes evil deeds. He is merciful and is easily propitiated by repentance. The punishment of the impenitent wicked will be fearful, and the reward of the faithful great. All men will have to rise from the dead and submit to the universal judgment. The Day of Resurrection and of Judgment will be preceded and accompanied by seventeen fearful, or greater, signs in heaven and on earth, and eight lesser ones, some of which are identical with those mentioned in the New Testament. The Resurrection will be general and will extend to all creatures — angels, jinns, men, and brutes. The torments of hell and the pleasures of Paradise, but especially the latter, are proverbially crass and sensual. Hell is divided into seven regions: Jahannam, reserved for faithless Mohammedans; Laza, for the Jews; Al-Hutama, for the Christians; Al-Sair, for the Sabians; Al-Saqar, for the Magians; Al-Jahim, for idolaters; Al-Hawiyat, for hypocrites. As to the torments of hell, it is believed that the damned will dwell amid pestilential winds and in scalding water, and in the shadow of a black smoke. Draughts of boiling water will be forced down their throats. They will be dragged by the scalp, flung into the fire, wrapped in garments of flame, and beaten with iron maces. When their skins are well burned, other skins will be given them for their greater torture. While the damnation of all infidels will be hopeless and eternal, the Moslems, who, though holding the true religion, have been guilty of heinous sins, will be delivered from hell after expiating their crimes.
The joys and glories of Paradise are as fantastic and sensual as the lascivious Arabian mind could possibly imagine. "As plenty of water is one of the greatest additions to the delights of the Bedouin Arab, the Koran often speaks of the rivers of Paradise as a principal ornament thereof; some of these streams flow with water, some with wine and others with honey, besides many other lesser springs and fountains, whose pebbles are rubies and emeralds, while their earth consists of camphor, their beds of musk, and their sides of saffron. But all these glories will be eclipsed by the resplendent and ravishing girls, or houris, of Paradise, the enjoyment of whose company will be the principal felicity ofthe faithful. These maidens are created not of clay, as in the case of mortal women, but of pure musk, and free from all natural impurities, defects, and inconveniences. They will be beautiful and modest and secluded from public view in pavilions of hollow pearls. The pleasures of Paradise will be so overwhelming that God will give to everyone the potentialities of a hundred individuals. To each individuals a large mansion will be assigned, and the very meanest will have at his disposal at least 80,000 servants and seventy-two wives of the girls of Paradise. While eating they will be waited on by 300 attendants, the food being served in dishes of gold, whereof 300 shall be set before him at once, containing each a different kind of food, and an inexhaustible supply of wine and liquors. The magnificence of the garments and gems is conformable to the delicacy of their diet. For they will be clothed in the richest silks and brocades, and adorned with bracelets of gold and silver, and crowns set with pearls, and will make use of silken carpets, couches, pillows, etc., and in order that they may enjoy all these pleasures, God will grant them perpetual youth, beauty, and vigour. Music and singing will also be ravishing and everlasting" (Wollaston, "Muhammed, His Life and Doctrines").
The Mohammedan doctrine of predestination is equivalent to fatalism. They believe in God's absolute decree and predetermination both of good and of evil; viz., whatever has been or shall be in the world, whether good or bad, proceeds entirely from the Divine will, and is irrevocably fixed and recorded from all eternity. The possession and the exercise of our own free will is, accordingly, futile and useless. The absurdity of this doctrine was felt by later Mohammedan theologians, who sought in vain by various subtile distinctions to minimize it.
Sorry, there was supposed to be a "/" there. There are Hindus who worship only one god (they see all others as just symbolic aspects of one true god), and the Jainist philosophy is a form of monotheism.
The name "Allah" is used by middle eastern Christians as well
That's true, but they do so incorrectly. "God" would properly be translated into Arabic as "Ilah", not "Allah" (the latter being the proper name for a particular deity, translating it as "allah" is as serious a mistake as translating it as "Jupiter" in latin). The use of "Allah" by arab Christians is a symptom of Islamic domination of the region, nothing more, and that name was not used before Islam came along.
The Moslem Allah has no historical ties to Marduk...
That depends on how you define "Moslem Allah". Allah pre-dates Islam, as the name of a member of a pantheon of deities. From an archeological standpoint, its history can be traced back to the sumerian Enlil (and thus the connection to Marduk, the actual progression being Enlil, Be'IL, Al ILAH, Il-hallabu, and finally Allah).
I will state again. The Moslems believe in ONE God who created all
So what about a satanists who believes that Satan was really the creator (and the Jewish god a pretender to the throne)? Is she actually worshipping the God she thinks is a false god? Does the act of worshipping a monotheistic god Make that god the true God?
The doctrines of Islam concerning God — His unity and Divine attributes — are essentially those of the Bible
The Catholic Encyclopedia is misleading (i.e., wrong) on this point.
I also humbly submit that, for the observance of the sacred rite of Holy Baptism, we do not practice immersion, pouring, or sprinkling.
I propose we baptise by spraying....
The Jainist, like the Buddhist and the pantheistic Brahmin, takes for granted the doctrine of Karma and its implied rebirths. He, too, views every form of earthly, bodily existence as misery. Freedom from rebirth is thus the goal after which he aspires. But, while the pantheistic Brahmin and the primitive Buddhist looked for the realization of the end in the extinction of conscious, individual existence (absorption in Brahma, Nirvana), the Jainist has always tenaciously held to the primitive traditional belief in a final abode of bliss, where the soul, liberated from the necessity of rebirth on earth, enjoys forever a spiritual, conscious existence. To attain this end, the Jainist, like the Buddhist and the pantheistic Brahmin, holds that the traditional gods can aid but little. The existence of the gods is not denied, but their worship is held to be of no avail and is thus abandoned. Salvation is to be obtained by personal effort alone.
I can't imagine how you can link Jainism and Islam. I see no parallels here.
"God" would properly be translated into Arabic as "Ilah", not "Allah" (the latter being the proper name for a particular deity, translating it as "allah" is as serious a mistake as translating it as "Jupiter" in latin). The use of "Allah" by arab Christians is a symptom of Islamic domination of the region, nothing more, and that name was not used before Islam came along.
Christians who speak Arabic pray to "Allah". "Allah" means "God" in Arabic. Does that mean that God does not hear them because they have His name wrong (according to you)? And the name "Allah" has been found in archealogical digs as the name of the One Creator long before Islam existed.
So what about a satanists who believes that Satan was really the creator (and the Jewish god a pretender to the throne)? Is she actually worshipping the God she thinks is a false god? Does the act of worshipping a monotheistic god Make that god the true God?
What?!? I have no idea how this statement fits into our discussion.
OK. Here is the bottom line for me. Muslims have a mistaken notion about the characteristics of God. But so do a lot of other religions. Does God not hear their prayers because their beliefs about Him are wrong?
Are you possibly asking something else? Let's slightly re-word that sentence for the sake of clarity: "Does God not answer their prayers because their beliefs about Him are wrong?"
"Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."
Did he do it again? :)
Hey 4 years after the fact, you guys spin machine is running behind. :)
BigMack
really? It is my opinion that anyone that knows the God of Abraham and Jesus knows better than to think all gods are created equal..What do you thing God was talking about in the first commandment? Would you deny God to protect your pope?
So do the Mormons..They believe the one god of THIS world organized this eartth are they correct too?
Believe what you like. I have no idea why you care what I think or what anyone besides a Calvinist thinks since we are not the elect ones.
If, as St. Paul says, Christ who knew no sin was made sin for us, can there be any sin he did not bear there on the cross?
Why do you care what they think? They aren't the elect anyway. And I'd rather a Mormon tell me what Mormonism believes... I've seen how you mangle and misunderstand Catholicism at least a couple of times.
Mat 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
Those martyers will find their virgins in Hell
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.