Posted on 08/31/2002 5:03:15 AM PDT by NYer
Sure, you just answered your own question. They are his encyclicals and other teachings, as you said.
For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted. (Luke 14:11, 18:14, Proverbs 3:34)
I'm out of here for a while. See you later. ;)
Please forgive me and waste your time to explain it to me once more. I am sorry that I did not listen last time, and I don't recall your explaining it to me. I know it was a topic on one of these threads, but I don't remember discussing it with you.
I hope when you return you will take the time to explain to me about the Koran, as I am genuinely interested in hearing about it.
Why wait? Here are your answers. From the archives of TCR News ....
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.
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.
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.
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.
Again thank you so much for this explanation. I greatly appreciate it. As a longtime whiner re- FR Catholics being unable to answer my questions about the pope's behavior, I am sincerely grateful to you for the time you took to post this.
Each of my posts has provided supporting documentation from either the GIRM, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. These are the official guidelines. If your RC parish is not in compliance, then you, as the church militant, have the responsibility of notifying your pastor and bishop.
The bishops have just come out against all kneeling only about a week ago.
Please get your facts straight. The USCCB came out in favor of standing during communion. It also states that "no one is to be denied Communion for kneeling".
Until you can provide official documentation to support your lame statements, I will no longer discuss this with you. You have closed your eyes and your heart to the catholic church, out of pride, personal prejudice and total ignorance. When you are ready to open your mind and your heart, we can resume a meaningful discussion.
Pax et Bonum
On the rare occasions when we kneel, we also do it on the floor.
Our priest brought this to everyone's attention this last summer and we all remain kneeling until the Amen is finished and the elevated host and chalice are lowered. Some people left, but believe me, the Mass is a lot more reverent. God bless his courage!
Now, as to your question ...
So what I am getting from this is that the RC church admits there can be some truth in the inspired writings of other faiths and that made it ok for the pope to kiss the Koran.
From Redmptoris Missio:
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.
Canon 938
º1. The Most Holy Eucharist is to be reserved regularly in only one tabernacle of a church or oratory.
º2. The tabernacle in which the Most Holy Eucharist is reserved should be placed in a part of the church that is prominent, conspicuous, beautifully decorated, and suitable for prayer.
º3. The tabernacle in which the Eucharist is regularly reserved is to be immovable, made of solid and opaque material, and locked so that the danger of profanation may be entirely avoided.
º4. For a grave cause, it is licit to reserve the Most Holy Eucharist in another safer and becoming place especially during the night.
º5. The person who has charge of the church or oratory is to see to it that the key of the tabernacle in which the Most Holy Eucharist is reserved is safeguarded most diligently.
1183 The tabernacle is to be situated "in churches in a most worthy place with the greatest honor." The dignity, placing, and security of the Eucharistic tabernacle should foster adoration before the Lord really present in the Blessed Sacrament of the altar.
The tabernacle at my church is next to the main altar and lit with and every-burning red candle.
I would like to know what is happening in other parishes............anyone want to let us know????
I would love to see this at our little church. But I don't think we could get the 24/7 name or numbers to maintain the worship. I will keep praying. We do have it downtown at the largest church in the vicariate, however.
Our church was built post Vatican II. It features the "risen" Christ behind the altar .. ugh! (The new day chapel has a beautiful crucifix hanging directly over the altar).
To the right of the altar, is another separate altar, dedicated exclusively to the Tabernacle. There is a hanging glass candle holder with a burning white candle inside. I ALWAYS sit on the side with the Tabernacle.
The kiss obviously was not meant in a sense of total agreement. The kiss didn't suggest carte blanche approval, it merely meant acceptance of those things which are true in the Koran, per Vatican II directives on ecumenism, and John Paul II's many comments in this vein. In other words, his actions have to be interpreted in light of his overall teaching, and that of the Church. You misinterpret JP's actions because you don't understand ecuminism, which is an effort to acknowledge partial truth wherever it is found. JP does this to bring awareness of the truths of the Catholic church to people who do not recognize Christ as God. That is his job.
I think that the burden is on you at this point is to tell me what you think the Holy Father meant when he did this... what his intent was. You argue that it is so obviously scandalous, etc. Okay. You are determined to assert that the pope is so obtuse and out of it that he could perform an act that you and some others around here immediately find abhorrent, one which gives aid and comfort to the enemy, and demoralizes the faithful, etc....that he could perform this and not see what you see so clearly? The choices are few at this point, as the inner logic of your claim confines you: either he was so dense that these factors never entered his mind, or he knew full well the scandal it would bring about, and did it anyway, or he is a dupe of the liberals, or one himself, determined to corrupt and betray the Church.
You say it is such a terrible thing, so tell me what you think was going through his mind when he did it?
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.