www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Interfaith dialogue

What do you think is the most difficult aspect of interfaith dialogue?

My initial reaction is the question of sola scriptura. It is difficult to have a deep, meaningful discussion with that major difference. Any thoughts from your perspective?

This is not intended to be a sola scrpitura debate. Just looking for your views in the greatest hiderances to interfaith dialogue.

I'm not sure how broad you intend the use of "interfaith".

Sola scriptura, the Eucharist, the place of the Mother of God, Peter and the Church hierarchy, and the relationship of faith [the sola fide argument] and good works seems to be major issues that come up at least when I have discussions with Protestants.

The biggest problem I encounter with Protestants (Baptists, too, who are about the worst for this) is that they have little or no sense of Christian history. Christ did not come in the 16th century, and Christianity existed for a millenium and a half before the Protestant reformers came on the scene. Actually, I don't know why I am pointing out Christian history, when the problem is a lack of historical awareness, period, both sacred and secular.

I would agree, but don't you think most of these relate back to our views on the Scriptures.

I apologise for whatever offence my OP caused ByzanTN. You accusation of ignorance of history is uncalled for, IMHO. I would agree that differing views of church history cause a problem.

You haven't caused any offense and none was intended toward you. I live in East Tennessee, where the Catholic population, both Roman and Eastern is around 5%, at most. Of course, there are differing views of church history, but the lack of knowledge about history in general is appalling. Some of it is from differing views of history, but some of it is from a lack of concern or knowledge about anything that happened before the particular believer's group came on the scene. I have had Baptists tell me John the Baptist was a Southern Baptist - and I am guessing that is because of the name!

I agree with you Berean.

My brother-in-law (a nondenominational Christian) and I have just recently begun discussing Protestant/Catholic differences. We talked a bit about baptism, Eucharist, Mary, the Pope, etc., but very quickly realized that we had completely different a priori assumptions about authority.

If Scripture is the final authority, then his views are on an equal par with my views - we just keep studying the Scriptures and try to determine what it says for a particular topic. However, if the Catholic Church is the authority given to us by Christ, and is guided by the Holy Spirit, then we must submit to her teachings, and then attempt to understand Scripture in this light.

I have found that when talking to Protestants, they see my position as one of many potentially legitimate positions, and consider themselves capable of judging it's validity based on their own personal knowledge of Scripture. However, I am looking at it that "my" position is the one held by the Church since the time of the apostles, and is protected by the Holy Spirit, precisely because it is not "my" position - I did not come up with my beliefs, I submitted to them.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Roger, brother in Christ,

To answer your question above:
My view in general is that two major hinderances in interfaith dialogue are: differences in terminology and interpretation. Biblically the latter would be heurmeneutics.(and I think you have already pointed out that difference.) Were I to go further it might get into debate which we have been asked not to do.

I know that some Baptists are informed of Church history; but many are not. The same is true of Catholics who are and aren't. I am sure you have studied Church history, and I know you are aware that the history of Christianity does go back to the time of the historical Jesus Christ, the apostles, and Paul and not just to the time of the Protestant Reformation.

Aside from that-- a major difference I find when I have entered into dialogue with my Baptist friends is their belief in 'eternal security'. However, perhaps that too is a difference in terminology and interpretation. [??]

Blessings on your family today,

Mary Jo <><

I have seen, and I am sure that others have as well, that the lack of historical knowledge is not just a problem in the Protestent churches, it is a problem in ALL churches. Just look at how many RCs do not even know about Eastern Catholics. Forget about that for a second and ask a friend that is Catholic if he/she knows about why, or even when the Catholic and Eastern church split, and forget about knowing anything about Oriental Orthodox and why or when they split from the rest of the church (or we from them if you are on that side). Or even to take it a step further.....ask someone, any Christian it does not matter what type, to name the disciples......truly it is sad to realise the answer.

Lack of historical knowledge is HUGE problem for all of the types of Christianity that are around now, it is certainly not lmited to the Protestants. However, I will admit that it does seem to be worse among them depending on who you talk to.

In His Name,
Stephen

This is what I was looking for - I have had dialogue with many Roman Catholics (very few Byzantine Catholics before now) and these are issues which keep popping up. When it comes right now to it, and has been pointed out, the questions are authority, which includes interpretation and what kinds of interpretation are valid.

The more I consider it the more I accept that differing views of church history do make a huge difference. I would, obviously, have a different view of church history than most posters here.

With these two major divergances I can see why we have such difficulties in discussion of theology.

Any other thoughts would be appreciated.

You mean he wasn't?

I have a strange feeling - not based on any divine revelation - that he might have been Jewish.

I heard a commentator recently state the following:

"The Protestants substituted an infallible Bible for an infallible Pope."

Of course, the analysis is much more complex than that, but an interesting comment nonetheless.

Yours,

hal

I think in some ways that is a simple explanation of the authority issue.

ROFL! That is comedy!

I have a priest friend, a second generation Italian, who was explaining to his grandma something about the Scriptures and he mentioned in passing the Jewishness of Jesus and Mary. His grandma interrupted "No Juda, Italiano!"
It's not just the Baptists...

Oh, I know it's not just the Baptists, although they do outnumber everyone else in this region, so it's easy to find examples from them. I think the degree of ignorance about scripture equals the ignorance about history. One of my co-workers - a college educated, degreed person - asked where in the Bible it says, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." Let me tell you about a faux pas of my own. I graduated from a very good Southern Baptist college in my area. Overall, I consider them to have been wonderful people, and I got along really well with them. As you know, there are many kinds of Baptist - Southern Baptists, Missionary Baptists, etc. Some of my Baptist friends informed me that they were not referred to as "Missionary Postion Baptists," that there was a difference between the two. It was one of those cases where what I said was not what I meant.

That is an excellent thought.

Just be careful that, as we Baptists should not paint all of another faith with one brush, it is unfair to paint all Baptists as ignorant of history or scripture.

I hope everyone understood this in the humorous way it was intended.

I am not implying that Baptists in particular are ignorant of scripture. History, sometimes, but not scripture, at least in East Tennessee. Although many are very good at cutting and pasting parts of scripture to the point of quoting scripture out of context. I think people in general are somewhat ignorant of scripture, at least these days. If I were to level a charge against many in my area, it would be that they only read the parts of scripture that they agree with. For example, St. Paul's statements about faith. Given his audience, and perhaps his enthusiasm, St. Paul made a strong case for faith. St. James, while not disagreeing with St. Paul about the importance of faith, links faith with works to the point of indicating that where no works are present, there may not be any faith there either. In other words, St. James says, in a sense, yes faith is good, but there's more to the story. Many folks in my area read St. Paul and ignore St. James as not relevant. I don't think you can do that with scripture, especially when you belong to a group that supposedly believes everything in the Bible as literal and true. If I were putting my faith in either St. Paul or St. James - not necessary since there is no real contradiction between the two - I would go with St. James. He actually knew Jesus, talked with him, listened to him, and probably actually knew more about Jesus than St. Paul, who came along later. Maybe it all goes back to Martin Luther's arrogance and presumption in declaring St. James writings, a work of divinely inspired scripture, an "epistle of straw" because it didn't agree with his (Luther's) position. Perhaps scripture is somewhat like the Church - more have used it than ever served it.

Amen!

Pastor Berean is quite correct. I have a friend of mine who is a member of a very fundamental, independent Baptist Church. At work, he got into a discussion with a Roman Catholic about Byzantine Catholics. The Roman Catholic refused to believe that we are in communion with the Roman Catholic Church and insisted that we were some sort of schismatic group. He printed out the �Who are Byzantine Catholics?� page from this website and had her bring in her Catholic Catechism to show her all the references to Eastern Catholic theology. While she acknowledged he was correct he said he thinks she still believes that we are not actually Catholic.

Admin

Administrator wrote:

[At work, he got into a discussion with a Roman Catholic about Byzantine Catholics. The Roman Catholic refused to believe that we are in communion with the Roman Catholic Church and insisted we are some sort of schismatic group. ...While she acknowledged he was correct he said he thinks she still believes that we are not actually Catholic.]


Administrator,

This happens to me often among my Roman Catholic friends. When we were attending a Byzantine Church in Spokane some years ago one of our Benedictine Sister friends ran into us at a Roman Catholic Church where we went one Sunday and told us she was so glad we had 'returned to the faith'.

It does give one opportunities to share and inform. I grew up Roman Catholic, graduated from a Catholic University, taught in a Catholic mission, and was working on an M.A.in Religious Studies years later (in my forties yet!) when I first learned about the Byzantine Catholics and that they were in communion with Rome.

My summer school roomate was taking a course in Byzantine Spirituality from the local Byzantine priest. She invited me to attend Divine Liturgy one Sunday. The next summer I took the same course....Ummmmm.......and then.... \O/

Blessings,


Mary Jo

Admin and Mary Jo,

It really is mind-numbing. I often have occasion to encounter Latin Catholics who pull into the parking lot in front of Our Lady of the Annunciation (the Melkite Cathedral) and alight from their car to admire the exterior of the building. Inevitably, they accept an invitation to view the interior. On entering the vestibule, one immediately sees a large mosaic portrait of Richard Cardinal Cushing, of blessed memory, above a bronze plaque that describes him as "our beloved benefactor" (as he indeed was).

This representation is probably 2 feet by 3 feet (dwarfing photographs of the Pope and Patriarch). To this, which I always thought ought to give a hint that we have some relationship to the Catholic Church (even potentially the erroneous one that we are Latins), I have heard folks say -

"how nice, but everyone loved him, didn't they"

"he was so ecumenical, never minded to which church someone belonged"

"I had heard that even Jews, Protestants, and Orthodox loved him, guess that was the case"

I wish I had a nickel for each time over the past 3.5 decades that I've given the explanation of who and what we are (not sure how often it's been believed though :rolleyes: .

Many years,

Neil

Administrator wrote:

[At work, he got into a discussion with a Roman Catholic about Byzantine Catholics. The Roman Catholic refused to believe that we are in communion with the Roman Catholic Church and insisted we are some sort of schismatic group. ...While she acknowledged he was correct he said he thinks she still believes that we are not actually Catholic.]


We are Catholic? I thought we are Orthodox! (Father Dennis would love that one).

There is no difference between the two!

I firmly believe that if one KNOWS the Sacred Scriptures very thoroughly, then one should be Catholic/Orthodox. Because the Catholic/Orthodox Church is the MOST Biblical Church of all churches. Everything that's done, said, lived are all based on the Scriptures. The Liturgy, the devotions, Sacraments, etc. are Scripture based.

It really baffles me soo much how can Protestants who supposedly know the scriptures remain a Protestant? Or are they too blinded by their ego of interpreting the scriptures the way they want believe?

One can pick a verse of the Scritures and many Protestant Churches interpret it all differently. But that would not be so with the Catholic Church...as she is the AUTHOR of the Scriptures. She also determined which books are worthy being in the Scriptures.

As the famous Protestant evangelist, Billy Graham, CREDITED the Catholic/Orthodox Church for writing the Scriptures. So, the Protestants should thank the Catholic/Orthodox Church for bringing the Scriptures to existence. The Protestants should also realize that the Catholic/Orthodox Church is the BEST interpreter of the Sciptures because it is she who wrote it.

Just don't forget that, okay everyone?

It also baffles me so much as to WHY would anyone want to be a member of a church that's founded by men? The Catholic/Orthodox Church is the ONLY Church founded by Christ Himself, the True G-d and Man.

That's not geared to attack the Protestants. I'm merely baffled by it.

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

We are very fortunate that the Roman Catholic Bishop of Knoxville, the Chancellor and the Vicar General are very supportive of the Byzantine Catholic Mission. We get coverage in the RC diocesan newspaper and honorable mention in RC church bulletins. Two of the RC priests that I know of have even given sermons about us. After 5 years of this, the RC faithful are getting a really good idea of who we Byzantines are and what we believe. This kind of support helps greatly.

SPDundas:

I understand the Protestant argument that the Holy Spirit reveals the meaning of scripture to individuals. But how can the Holy Spirit reveal so many different interpretations to so many individuals? I have difficulty accepting that the Holy Spirit is that inconsistent.

I disagree, of course,with the last few posts, but amnot here tp try to defend my beliefs on your forum.

Thanks for the input

That's exactly my point! The Holy Spirit CANNOT be the author of confusion!!! The only best source is to look at the VISIBLE...which is the Church. Jesus promised to the Apostles that He will always remain with us...and also that the Holy Spirit will guide Peter and the Apostles and their successors (Pope and Bishops).

Many modern thinkers (mostly modernists or Protestants) conceive the Church as only a "spiritual nature"...meaning...a collection of people united to praise Jesus (collection of people meaning...from any religion or nationality or whatever). That is heresy, I must say. Because it's saying that it doesn't matter what Christian religion you're in....they're all the same (which we know it's not).

The Church is NOT just a spiritual only...The Church is also PHYSICAL, just as G-d is also physical (in Christ who is G-d and Man). The Church is THERE visibily (that's what I meant when I said...look at the visible source at my above comment). Physical Church...with faithful looking at the SAME Faith and Tradition (Catholic/Orthodox is good example).

The evidence is also there..that the Catholic/Orthodox Church existed from the time Christ founded her. (look at historical PROOF...OLD Churches, early Christian catacombs, places of worship in Christian homes, etc.) Also look at the early Church Councils, look at the Early Church Fathers. It's all there! What we believe today is the same belief back then. One unchangable Faith. NO Protestant or other Christian sects can claim that fact.

IN the creed..One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church..the Apostolic part signify the VISIBILITY of the Church, that's passed down from the Apostles to today. The Catholic part signify the Universality of the Church that is ONE and Holy and Apostolic (visible/handed down by Apostles).

Besides, how can Jesus, the Groom, consumate His love to His Bride (which is the One Holy Catholic Apostlic Church)??? REMEMBER, Jesus is BOTH G-d AND Man. OH! Of course! The CHURCH also have to be physical as well as spiritual! The Eucharist is the best example of Christ's LOVE and consumation of His Love...being united with Christ..as ONE Flesh...in Communion..partaking His Body and Precious Blood in our physical bodies..as a True Food for our both bodies AND soul.

G-d makes things VISIBLE for us, since we are visible creatures. So He makes Himself visible so that we will be ONE with Him as He is among us (Emmanuel).

G-d even USES earthly things to manifest His powers! (Look at Christ's healing of a blind person..by using clay. If you look at the scriptures, you'll find that Christ used things to heal people.). We know that things per se don't heal people, but rather G-d uses them to SHOW that it is happening.

That is exactly what Sacraments are...things that's used to SHOW the true manifestation of what is really happening that cannot be seen. I.E. Baptism, we use water to Baptize. We know that the water per se doesn't renew us spiritually, but the water is used to SHOW what is really happening.

It's sad and unfortunate that we are living in a culture (mainly Protestant culture) saying that "things are evil and bad". Like sex is bad. Sex is the manifestation of a Husband and Wife's Sacrament of Matrimony, every time a man and wife does "it", he and she renews the wedding vows. Sex is extremely sacred, so sacred that the devil did all he can to profane it.

Man, the Eastern Churches are right on target on the topic of "Theosis"...G-d became Man, so that we all can become like G-d. It's only the Western Catholics that is now coming to grips of this profound theology.

I know that, someday at the end of the world, when our bodies and souls reunite to it's true "being", there will be a PHYSICAL Heaven. Heaven isn't just a "spiritual place." Perhaps the earth will be resurrected as well for our resurrected bodies.

Anyway...

I've heard of a lady saying that abortion is a gift from G-d...that she was "inspired" by the Holy Spirit. That cannot be so!

So..in the same way...many private interpretations of the Scriptures cannot contradict the teachings of the Church (which is infallabily INSPIRED by the Holy Spirit) contained in the Sacred Scriptures which the Church wrote and in the Sacred Tradition which the Church passed down on.

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine