www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Pope Francis wishing a happy ramadan to Muslims?

It is beautiful if you are into theological relativism, but I hold that Christ is the only savior of mankind, and that asceticism - for it to have salvific value - must be in imitation of Him and Him alone.

This comment is theologically vapid. It is not possible to worship God while simultaneously denying the dogmas of the Incarnation and the Trinity.

Quite honestly, if I believed that Muslims offered true worship to the Father, I would have no other option but to convert to Islam. If what Muhammad taught is true, then Christ's teaching - i.e., that no one can come to the Father except by Him - is wrong.

We teach that Christ is the "Just Judge." Would a just judge prohibit a person from reaching a goal just because they were unaware of an easier path?

OR:

Would one be denied mercy just because he doesn't know the judge?

^Just wondering. Would you feel better if the Pope had issued a "fatwa" of sorts, reminding Muslims they and their children will burn in the nether regions of Hell all eternity and urging a new Crusade to liberate the Holy Lands?

I don't think you mean that, but your tone might imply that to others.

Sometimes, silence is golden and arguably the Pope and others should have remained silent on the occasion.

Where have I said that Christ is an unjust judge? All I have said is that Christ is the sole savior of mankind, and that Muhammad is a false prophet who has deceived millions (even billions) of people.

Following Muhammad does not (nor can it ever) bring anyone to salvation, and so rather than wish Muslims a "happy ramadan" it would be better for Christian leaders (and for the lay faithful as well) to preach the Good News of Christ and in the process help to bring those deceived by Muhammad to the only true worship of God, which was offered by Christ the Lord Himself upon the altar of the cross, and which is perpetually render present in the Church's liturgy.

Christ is, contrary to Islamic belief, the only-begotten Son of God, and no one can have access to the Father except through Him. Now I see no way for a person to offer true and pure worship to the Father without acknowledging that God became incarnate in Christ and I base this affirmation in the teaching of Sacred Scripture, which says quite plainly that anyone who denies that Jesus Christ is the Son of God is an anti-Christ.

Unlike a Muslim I do not believe in issuing "fatwas" or calling for the murder of anyone; instead, I believe that Christians are duty bound to preach the Gospel and make disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. As a corollary to this, I hold that theological indifferentism is a sin, because holding that a religious system founded upon an explicit denial the dogmas of the Incarnation (i.e., the divinity of Christ) and the Holy Trinity is a betrayal of the Lord and a form of apostasy from the faith once for all delivered to the saints.

I agree, it would have been better if the pope had said nothing rather than to promote theological indifferentism.

^Is the ongoing Theological Dialogue between the Church of Rome and the Orthodox reflective of "theological indifferentism" in your estimation?

No. Catholics and Orthodox (and even most Protestants) believe in the Holy Trinity, and so dialogue can be fruitful. Islam, on the other hand, is founded upon a denial of the central dogmas of the Christian faith, and evangelization (i.e., bringing Muslims out of darkness and error into the light of Christ) is the only proper form of contact between Christians and Muslims.

Most people don't live in theological bubbles, sometimes practical considerations have to be made. When the Pope or the Patriarchs speak, they represent more than theology or doctrine, the sociological implications on the ground - practical day to day lives of people living in certain regions - are affected. For the EP or Patriarch of the SOC to not say anything is akin to ignoring the far majority of citizenry in their land, and can be taken as a slight; by being seen visibly with the religious leaders and lay faithful of the majority, certainly some lives have been spared on our (Trinitarian) side.

Thank you. I do not live in a "theological bubble" either. I simply refuse to compromise my faith in Christ in order to be politically correct.

That said, I readily admit that I am a lowly Christian and that I cannot prevent anyone (even leaders of Churches) from betraying Christ.

There is no compromise in faith in being courteous to others. Jews wish you a Merry Christmas, you wish them a Happy Chanukah. A Muslim wishes me a happy Easter, I will offer him a happy Ramadan. True belief cannot be coerced, but, on the other hand, one act of kindness and courtesy to others is an evangelical and escatological action. We should be Christians, not jerks.

So whats next? With this premises, we can substitute the idea of regional "Islam," with atheism, homosexuality, or paganism. And without falling into the slippery slope fallacy one can see where this gets out of control. Although the actions of one bishop does not represent the entire church, those actions can harm the entire church.