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!