www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Papal Infallibility

Dear Linus,

Saluting the flag, as you Americans do it, does indeed come from pagan Roman antiquity and the way they honoured their "vexillols" which early Christians considered to be pagan but later these notions changed.

Many Christians were killed by Muslims, of course. Many Muslims were also killed by Christians - let's keep a sense of historical balance here!

If you are saying that there is nothing in Islam, including the Koran, that is positive or good, then you are indeed going against Catholic teaching.

And you are just not being fair here.

There are Muslims who are not fanatics, who are reasonable and pious and respectful of other religions, including Christianity.

Alex

Slava Isusu Christu!

Linus,

Oh, but we were talking about "making something Christian", the blessing of the Pope by the Indian Catholic woman who was wearing traditional ethnic makeup.

Of course it was ridiculously improper for His Holiness to kiss the Koran, as Alex has pointed out. But I don't recall any encyclical going out saying that Islam is the same as Christianity. The man made a religious faux pas, so to speak.

In Christ,
mikey.

Dear Mikey,

Actually, I didn't say that .

I hope I won't be canonically penanced for that position . . .

Alex

Slava Isusu Christu!

Alex,

Well, "ridiculously improper" is just a nice way of saying "DEAD WRONG".

My mother always told me to stop quoting people using euphemisms. Hard habit to break.

In Christ,
mikey.

Dear Mikey,

Perhaps the Pope was trying to do penance for all the Turks the Poles did in during wars past?

Paying respect towards one another is never wrong - or so I say.

I respect your position and Linus' too.

I just don't like it

Alex

Yes. But Alex, just as Islam is opposed to Christianity (and it is), Christianity is opposed to Islam. I'm not saying that these Christians were somehow justified in killing Muslims, but it just goes to show that Christianity is anti-Islamic. And that's not a bad thing. We don't have to confrontational about it.

Logos Teen

Dear Teen Logo,

I don't know if Christianity is "anti-Islamic."

I see Christ as the ultimate goal and fulfillment of the world's major religions.

I think it was Lev Gillet who said that, in some sense, the world' religions today are like so many "Old Testaments" awaiting the coming of the Messiah, OLGS Jesus Christ.

And there are Christian Churches whose worst enemies in history have been other Christians.

Alex

Alex,

I respectfully still submit that Christianity is anti-Islamic. Christ's Church is opposed to anyone and anything that denies Jesus as the Christ as God in the flesh. These denials come straight from the Evil One, and I don't see how a religion, however benevolent, can be tolerated as some "Old Testament" concept when it categorically denies what the Body of Christ holds dearest.

Logos Teen

Christianity is diametrically opposed to all other religions in the world, because the Book of Acts 4:12 clearly tells us that " Neither is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name (Jesus Christ) under heaven given to men by which we must be saved". The Qu'ran teaches that Jesus DID NOT make atonement for the sins of the world, hence Jesus is not the fulfillment of Islamic teaching. Nor of any other of the world's religions.

There have been, since the days of the early Church, two approaches to other religions. The one is prophetic and confrontational, denouncing error and proclaiming the Truth of the unique claims of Christ [Tertullian comes to mind]. The other approach echoes St Paul at Mars Hill in Athens and seeks to build on whatever is true in other faiths [think of Justin Martyr]. Both ways are, I think, valid. It is a matter of the gift of discernment to know which to employ in a particular case. Missionaries throughout the history of the Church have used both approaches, sometimes [arguably] erring on one side or the other, sometimes hitting the mark. Personally, and in general, I think the irenic and generous approach should be used in this age with non-Christian religions, building -for example- on the Muslim veneration of Mary and respect for Jesus. On the other hand, I think the prophetic approach is the only honest one toward apostate Christian bodies [like our modern day Anglicans].

Do me favor and quit trying to teach me history. That is what I got my degree in (with honors), and I am a member of Phi Alpha Theta, as well. So spare me, please.

No one was talking about saluting flags, and I already said that if the woman in that famous photo was an Indian Catholic, then FINE. I understand inculturation, for crying out loud!

But kissing the Koran is NOT inculturation.

And there is a major difference between Muslims who murdered Christians and Christians who killed Muslims in just wars against them, some of which just wars were called for by popes.

Christianity and Islam are not morally equivalent.

Any religion that denies that Jesus is the Christ is antichrist.

Yes, I realize that what Pope John Paul II did in kissing the Koran was merely an error in propriety and did not involve any doctrinal or moral teaching.

But the Pope's actions speak volumes to the world. Kissing the Koran definitely sent the wrong message.

I am Orthodox, but I am pretty pro-Roman Catholic. I must admit that when I saw the famous photo of the Pope kissing the Koran it blew me away . . . and not in a positive sense.

As for seeing positive things in Islam: I don't.

Dear Danieln,

An excellent post and discourse - very well and succinctly put - congratulations!

Alex

Dear Linus,

I hope I didn't come across as trying to "teach" you anything!

And if you weren't highly intelligent, as your credentials also bear out, you wouldn't be here to begin with!

Christians have also killed Muslims, not only in war, but also simply because they were Muslims - but you know that already.

The Orthodox Patriarchates living in largely Muslim lands have carried out, as you doubtless also know, very extensive ecumenical dialogues with Muslims. Christians in Muslims lands, even though they are often persecuted, have, because they must have, a very good relationship with their Muslim neighbours, socially and religiously.

We could look at other world religions as making a statement against Christ, denying Him.

But that was not the attitude toward non-Christian religions taken by the Apostles in the Book of Acts, for example.

The early Church did not spend a lot of time attacking the pagans which it was sent out by Christ to evangelize.

The Church preached to the pagans, baptized them, made them its members and, over time, blessed numerous practices of pagan provenance and her Fathers themselves were formerly trained in pagan philosophy.

In short, the Church was more interested in bring Christ to the pagans rather than in trying to blame them for being who they were or for believing in what they believed.

I think that is the best possible attitude with respect to evangelization - as Danieln has wonderfully stated, I believe, above.

Those of us who have had the experience of working with Muslims and who have been used by God to bring Muslims to Christ know that calling their religion part of the plan of "Anti-christ" and the like is simply useless and is not what Christ would have done.

Stephen Neill's "A History of Christian Missions" shows just how Christian missionaries throughout history have used other religions' perspectives in adapting them to Christianity for purposes of making Christ more obviously visible to those they were sent to evangelize.

Even the Russian Orthodox have studied Tibetan Buddhism and the religion of the "Bon" in trying to understand where there are any points of convergence with Orthodoxy - most often in terms of outward ritual if nothing else.

Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky tried to convert Eastern Catholics in Galicia and elsewhere, as you know.

But did he use the kind of invective against "uniates" that we often come across in traditionalist Orthodox circles to do that? Not on your life!

He and St John Pommer of Latvia praised the Eastern Catholics for maintaining their Eastern liturgical traditions as much as they did, even going so far as calling them "Orthodox" whose alliance with the West was not of their own making etc.

This is why they were held in high esteem by the Eastern Catholic intelligentsia, to a large extent, and why a number of these became Orthodox.

My point here is simply that we must learn to love and respect those who do not yet believe in Christ because we never know when God will use us to bring them to Himself.

We won't get far via the seige mentality, to be sure.

Since you gave your credentials, allow me to give mine:


Alex Roman, BA, MA, PhD

Alex

There is a great difference between not antagonizing those of other faiths and pandering to them or appearing to endorse their errors. Of course, it would have been sheer insanity for the Apostles and their immediate successors to have "attacked" paganism, just as it would be insane for Christian missionaries in foreign lands today to do so.

But there really is no excuse for a Christian leader like the Pope to kiss the Koran.

That was a mistake, and it should be recognized as one.

I wonder: would John Paul II have kissed a copy of Das Kapital during his days as a priest in Communist Poland?

Dear Linus,

I think you are being rather silly - Das Kapital?

Thanks to the Pope - he kissed communism good-bye!

He did more to bring down communism that anyone.

Unfortunately, the Orthodox Hierarchs under communism were the ones seemingly more willing to cooperate with the atheistic regime.

Alex