www.byzcath.org

Dear jbosl,

I don't mean to upset you and I'm not questioning the veracity of what your friend saw or wrote!

It is ultimately the Church that will pronounce on what happened at Fatima.

There are administrative channels that this can go through, are there not?

Complaints can be made, in a respectful tone, to Rome itself.

The tenor here seems to be that an act of pagan blasphemy has been committed at Fatima with the tacit approval of the local church authorities - and the implication made that Rome itself agrees with such blasphemy indirectly since it has made no protest.

And that is the kind of interpretation that I question and do challenge.

Everyone has the right to appeal to Rome and should do so in a matter such as this.

To do otherwise would place oneself on a road that just might lead to separation from the Church.

Alex

To calm matters down, I would like to point out that prayer is not the primary or major element of worship. The primary or major element of worship is the SACRIFICE.

If the Hindu priest was offering up a sacrifice from the altar at Fatima (whether fruits or flowers or animals or whatever it is Hindus offer in sacrifice to their gods), then, and ONLY then, could one consider it a sacrilege or profanation. I don't recall anyone reporting the performace of a sacrifice, or intercommunion in a sacrifice.

As it is, I don't see anything wrong with allowing a prayer for peace at the altar of God, even if done by a pagan. I does not seem to me that anyone was worshipping together at Fatima. Praying together is NOT the same thing as worshipping together. It may certainly shock the senses to see people of different religions in one place on bended knee, but what is morally wrong with it?

Blessings,
Marduk

Sure, one must remember "I am X, they are Y" and so not to confuse religions. But that is not the same thing which is happening when one shares time together, and even worships together. Is your faith that confused? Mine isn't. . .

Dear Henry...

I've never seen anyone quite as confused as you are. On the grounds that St. Augustine said something which supports your neo-pagan nonsense, you there for chose to tell people that the Canons of your Church (btw, ALL SET OUT BY SAINTS) are irrelevant. Guess what? MORE saints said they are VERY RELEVANT.

Get over whatever pet theory you are writing your doctoral dissertation on, and stop attacking people who accept the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Regardless of whether you earn your PhD on the basis of this tripe, I'm hear to tell you that IF Christ holds you responsible for leading people astray, HE will not care if you got a PhD on the basis of it or NOT. You won't be able to argue this point with Him.

I pray that He just views you as extremely misguided. Don't try to set yourself above the Church, it won't get you anywhere in the Final Judgment.

Gaudior, in disgust.

"Don't set yourself above the Church, that's for me to do."

It is amazing how people will say "you are setting yourself above the Church" when someone is pointing out, to people ATTACKING the Church, that the method they use to attack the Church is setting themselves above.

"It's my interpretation of the Canons, not the Church's." That is where it stands for all rebellion.

Henry who has no "pet theories," in sorrow that people are attacking the Church to defend it.

Dear Henry,

I would agree with Gaudior that we as Christians, and particularly Christians of apostolic Churches cannot worship together with non-believers. Our canons forbid it, and Scripture forbids it.

We cannot partake of the table of demons. Perhaps in your defense of what occurred at Fatima, you are going overboard with your statement that it is OK to worship together with pagans/non-believers? You do not need to go that far. Judging from the reports, there was no common worship occuring at Fatima, only a prayer service.

Blessings,
Marduk

The Church does worship with non-believers. It reminds me again of how Jesus was told he shouldn't be with all those non-Jews. How dare he go to Samaria, and teach them. The laws didn't allow it!

I have stated, and will state again-- the canons are for man, not man for the canons. They have a role, a good one. But we must not be fundamentalist/pharisaical about them either. We must realize that many of the canons used do not apply to the situation at hand; they were written for another time, another situation than this.

St Paul DID worship at an interfaith shrine. Jesus found himself fit with the non-Jews, with the lepers.. both the law said he couldn't do. Or what about not being able to work miracles, since it was work, on the sabbath?

Worshiping with people is a means of showing their dignity, respecting who they are. It is not always a clear-cut case that "it's demons." St Augustine, whom I quoted, shows this is the case (as did St Paul, in many circumstances).

We must be careful, and not think WE are above the Church and judge the Church wrong, when it does have interfaith times together. The Pope WAS going to worship with the Muslims, until the Muslims said no.

So many people ignore what I have said, and just want to attack, attack, attack. "The Church is just wrong." And yet if I respond and say the Church knows the canons, and knows their value, and knows when to apply them, and where they apply, I am being told I am going against the Church. Strange they can't remember it when they start cursing the Church for its interfaith activities. And it is not just Catholicism.

Prayer is not the primary element of worhsip?!? So unless we are participating in the Divine Liturgy / Mass we are not worshiping?!?

worship n.
1.a. The reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, an idol, or a sacred object.
1.b. The ceremonies, prayers, or other religious forms by which this love is expressed.
2. Ardent devotion; adoration.

"Let my prayer rise as incense before you, and the lifting up of my hands as an evening sacrifice." Psalm 140:2 (see Vespers)

"pray without ceasing" Thes. 5:17

Enough said.


Oύτις ημιν φιλει ου φροντίδα | Nemo nos diliget non curamus

No, Henry, we are not attacking the Church, and saying IT is wrong. We are saying that MEN who yet live, and are not saints, have made incorrect decisions, and that you, Henry, are supporting THAT over the Saints of the Church, who said "What part of NO didn't you understand????"

Go, Baptise, Teach, does NOT mean that you invite unbelievers to the altar of your Church, and allow them to worship THEIR GODS, not yours, in an area consecrated to that purpose.

Gaudior, who knows full well that this will be rejected, because it was not said by Henry

Dear KO63,

Your biblical quote actually exactly supports my statement. Prayer is an acceptable sacrifice, but what would make it worship is not the mere act of communicating with the Lord (which is the lay definition of prayer). Our mere love for God does not constitute worship; nor our mere recognition of his attributes. BTW, your academic definition of prayer from a dictionary does not delve deeply enough into what constitutes actual worship for you to be able to equate prayer and worship by that definition. Your quote from Psalms more exactly defines what it is by which prayer may be regarded as worship. Only when we consciously OFFER up (PROSPHERO) such prayers as a sacrifice can it be called worship.

The GREATEST worship is the Divine Liturgy, because the Sacrifice it entails is the PERFECT Sacrifice, the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

I always pray to God; I say "hello" to Him; I say "good night" to Him; many times I even ask Him little things like letting me get to work on time or safely. But this is not properly called worship. I wrote above that prayer is an acceptable sacrifice, but prayer is not equated with sacrifice, and the only acceptable worship, in the eyes of God, is the one that involves sacrifice (or offerings). I do not have it on hand, but I definitely remember that somewhere in the OT, the only acceptable worship is the offering of an acceptable sacrifice.

Now, I would need to get my hands on the actual text of that prayer for peace. If it does not explicitly have the language of offering, I would stop short of calling it worship.

Blessings,
Marduk

As Alex noted, many Hindi worship Jesus as an avatar. One of my friends in fact, an Indian raised in the Anglican faith (though he never accepted it), regards Jesus as just that. Is it possible that these Hindi were worshipping Jesus by their prayers, having a little respect for the location? Before judging, I would certainly like to know. Were they actually worshipping THEIR gods, or was that simply an interpretative commentary of the newscaster who knew that the Hindu religion is polytheistic? Is it not possible that in their chanting and prayers (I am still holding to my distinction that the only acceptable worship is one that involves sacrifice), they were simply worshipping Jesus Christ? Are Hindi so crass as to worship any other but Jesus Christ in a church dedicated to Him? We really need more info before making further judgments. We, as Christians, need to "JUDGE WITH RIGHT JUDGMENT." God also commands us through the OT Scriptures that we need "to go and diligently inquire" before making any accusations.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear Marduk,

By your words you have eliminated Vespers, or Compline, Matins, or Pre-Sanctified Liturgy as "worship"...

These acts of corporate prayer are not to be equated with private prayer, as a member of the Clergy is required to complete them in their fullness. Surely when a priest is required, it is more than just private prayer.

Gaudior, who assures you that those ARE worship

Personally, (don't get upset at me Gaudior!) I agree with Mardukm.

Sacrifice is the highest act of worship, and really anything outside of the Unbloody Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ cannot be properly termed worship. Protestants do not actually worship in the true sense of the word. The only actual worship on this earth is the oblation of Christ that occurs during the Liturgy.

Logos Teen

"Come let us worship God our King
Come let us worship and fall down before Christ our King and God
Come let us worship and fall down before Christ himself, our King and God"

--Said at the beginning of all Liturgical acts, interestingly, with the exception of the Divine Liturgy.

Divine Liturgy may be worship par excellance, but all liturgical prayer is worship. Do we not worship God during the other Sacraments? Those, too, are a participation in the Life, Death, and Resurrection of Christ. Read the Fathers--for them all prayer done with a purified nous is worship. All worship may find its culmination in the Divine Liturgy, but that does not mean that other liturgical and prayerful acts are not worship. Read Archimandrite Robert Taft's last couple chapters to "Liturgy of the Hours in the East and West." Please quote me where the Fathers, or any of the saints, say that only the Divine Liturgy is worship. In fact, go back and read the Letter to the Hebrews and the Letters of St. Peter.

As for the Hindus, what would it take for you to decide that allowing them access to a Christian altar is wrong--sacrificing fetuses and virgins to Kali? Good grief!

Kyrie Eleison, many times!

Justin

Frankly, this is absurd. First of all, Scripture specifically refers to him as a priest of the Most High (have you ever read the Psalms or the Letter to the Hebrews?). "for he was a priest of the most high God." Gen 14:18. There is also a long-standing tradition among some of the Rabbis that Melchisedech was in fact Noah's son Shem. Whether that is the case or not, I hardly see evidence he was a pagan.

If you read this quote, St. Augustine is specifically calling the gods of the pagans "demons". When he refers to them as angels, he is speaking metaphisically or existentially. When he refers to them as demons, he is speaking morally. In other words, he is concerned here with the existential reality of the pagan gods, in which case they fall into the metaphysical category of "angel", but they are fallen angels, a.k.a. "demons". One could call satan an angel, too. BTW, I suggest you read the very next paragraph in the City of God, for St. Augustine goes on to state: "The meaning is 'above those whom the pagans regard as gods,' that is, the demons." Later in the same chapter, in the penultimate paragraph, he goes so far as to call the Platonists "the friends of demons". I love it when people quote out of context!!

Justin

Justin,

It is clear you do not understand the point St Augustine was making. Yes, the Platonists call them gods; yes they call them daemons. St Augustine is saying, while they call them either, they are angels in our view. And that the Platonists understand the ONE GOD (he makes this point) which the Platonists say the daemons/gods participate in but are not the one, differentiated God.

Now why does he call them daemon-friends. Is he talking about later interpretations of daemons? No. He is talking about the Platonic meaning, plain and simple. Which is not the same as the later demonology of the Church.

This is also why, when you read Augustine, he praises the Platonists in many sources. Socrates is well known as being called the "pre-Christian Christian."

Perhaps St Seraphim of Sarov might be of note.

"Though not with the same power as in the people of God [i.e. Israel], nevertheless the presence of the Spirit of God also acted in the pagans who did not know the true God [i.e. were not of Israel], because even among them God found for Himself chosen people. Such, for instance, were the virgin prophetesses called Sibyls who vowed virginity to an unknown God [the term is a technical Platonic term for God, who is unknown because God is beyong knowing], but still to God the Creator of the universe, the all-powerful ruler of the world, as He was conceived by the pagans. Though the pagan philosophers also wandered in the darkness of ignorance of God, yet they sought the truth which is beloved by God [this is also true, for example, with many Hindu priests so hated by many today; I know many people don't know much of Hinduism, and so just in ignorance assume all kinds of absurdities] and on account of this God-pleasing seeking, they could partake of the Spirit of God... " (Acquisition of the Holy Spirit, V, notes mine).

And even of Melchisedech was Shem that does not make him a non-pagan; for he was not in the Covenant of Abraham which made him an Israelite. In fact, he had to be Canaanite, from where he dwelt. "He knows the true God, not under the name of Yahweh which is to be revealed to Moses as an indication of the new divine treasures revealed in the convenant, but under the name of El, which is the name of God the Creator who is known thorugh His action in the world. ... Melchisedech is a priest of that primitive religion of mankind, which was not to be limited to Israel but to embrace all people. He does not offer sacrifice in the Temple at Jerusalem, but the whole world is the Temple whense rises the incesne of prayer." (Jean Danielou, Holy Pagans of the Old Testament, 104).

Pax
Henry