http://www.romereports.com/palio/pope-francis-greets-muslims-for-the-start-of-ramadan-english-10488.html#.Ud3mY-5q14o

What do my Eastern brethren think about this? Wouldn't this be heretical since he is encourging the practice of a false religion?

God Bless!

I see it as nothing other than an act of kindness towards Muslims, not as an heretical act of encouraging the practice of a false religion.

If one believes the God of Christians is the same God of Muslims, what is wrong with encouraging them to fast?

We still believe that fasting brings us closer to God, don't we?

Well, this Eastern brother thinks that no Catholic should be too quick to accuse a pope of heresy!

Traditional Latin Catholics can't have it both ways in that if Eastern Christians bring up the spectre of Pope Honorius I and the Monothelites as a way to say there were popes who not only did untoward things, but were actually condemned by Rome for doing so, we get set upon by Latin Trads.

But Latin Trads don't mind accusing recent popes of untoward things . . .

To wish someone a good Ramadan etc. is simply being a religious gentleman.

Pope Francis is a remarkable pope in this and many other regards. All Catholics, and indeed the world, should thank God for him.

Alex

Happy Ramadan!

[Linked Image]

But Latin Trads don't mind accusing recent popes of untoward things . . .

And some are too quick to jump in with condemnations of "Latin Trads."

And in case there's any doubt about that, here's the text of article 3 from Nostra Aetate (V-II Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions):
[Note (5) above refers to a quotation from St. Gregory VII, letter XXI to Anzir (Nacir), King of Mauritania (Pl. 148, col. 450f.)]

Peace,
Deacon Richard

Guilty as charged sir!

If you could show me how I'm wrong, I will repent.


Alex

Happy Ramadan to you too, Tomassus!

Are you a Latin Traditionalist? I just ask because JBenedict seems to think I'm being nasty to Latin Trads . . . sniff . . .

Alex

Dear JBenedict,

I see you are a Latin Traditionalist - not that there's anything wrong with that.

What do you think about the pope wishing Muslims a happy Ramadan?

Alex

What do you think about the pope wishing Muslims a happy Ramadan?

I don't have a problem with it.

The problem with your comment is that it's a rant about Latin traditionalists that a) groups them all together and b) haven't said anything like that in this thread.

Well, I hope it wasn't a rant.

I've just come across many Latin Trads (a number of them with the SSPX) who just love to pillory the recent popes, and for things like this.

I apologise if I've given offense.

Was just defending the Pope of Rome - Viva il Papa!!

Alex

This unfortunately is a very idealized and shortsighted view of Islam, and its practice as evidenced by daily news stories seems far from this ideal. I could start with the persecution of Christians across the Muslim world and end with the recent slaying of the British soldier in England. I don't buy into the argument that the vast majority of Muslims are in fact peaceful, tolerant people. Regardless of whether they practice Jihad, they generally don't "melt" into any melting pots. don't intermarry, and most believe eventually Islam will prevail worldwide. They will eventually hold a majority in Europe and at that point will use the democracy that protected them to destroy that very democracy. Anyone who believes that the present violence we are seeing from Muslims is something temporary that will some day be reasoned away needs to have a good read of the Koran and history.

That doesn't mean I have a problem with the Pope wishing them a Happy Ramadan or extending peaceful greetings. I just don't think it will stop them from burning the next church or killing the next priest.

Just as there are divisions in Christianity, there are divisions in Mohammedanism. We ought not "paint the canvas with a broad stroke."

Pro-Morsi demonstration at Al-Aqsa Mosque: U.S., France, Britain to be destroyed, Rome to be conquered

Jihad Watch
July 17, 2013

There were also calls for the restoration of the caliphate. The caliphate is supposed to be the unitary state in which every Muslim is a citizen. In Sunni theology, only the caliph is authorized to wage offensive jihad -- which is one reason (but not the only reason) why in the current absence of a caliph all jihads are justified by endless grievance-mongering. All jihad is currently defensive, so the grievances have to be retailed.

This crowd also repeated the genocidal and anti-Semitic "Khaybar" war chant.

“Pro-Morsi Demonstration at Al-Aqsa Mosque: U.S., France, Britain to Be Destroyed, Rome to Be Conquered,” from MEMRI, July 12:

Following are excerpts from a pro-Morsi demonstration held outside the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, which was posted on the Internet on July 12, 2013:

Palestinian cleric: Allah Akbar. May America be destroyed.
Crowd: Allah Akbar.

Palestinian cleric: Allah Akbar. May France be destroyed.
Crowd: Allah Akbar. May France be destroyed.

Palestinian cleric: Allah Akbar. May Rome be conquered.
Crowd: Allah Akbar. May Rome be conquered.

Palestinian cleric: Allah Akbar. May America be destroyed.
Crowd: Allah Akbar. May America be destroyed.

Palestinian cleric: Allah Akbar. May France be destroyed.
Crowd: Allah Akbar. May France be destroyed.

Palestinian cleric: Allah Akbar. May Britain be destroyed.
Crowd: Allah Akbar. May Britain be destroyed.

Palestinian cleric: Allah Akbar. May Rome be conquered.
Crowd: Allah Akbar. May Rome be conquered.

More of this raving and ranting at http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/07/p...o-be-destroyed-rome-to-be-conquered.html

Father Deacon Paul,

I think they are painting their own canvas with the likes of the above rants. I am merely interpreting what I see there.

I understand. Obscene Americans also ranted insanely in the Texas legislature in defense of unlimited abortion.

As for the countries he wants destroyed, the idols of European societies and America seem to be doing that from within...

Lord have mercy!

I totally agree with Ryan here. Politeness is a form of Christian charity and love. Peoples need to live together in peace. Respecting the (differences) of the other is the only way to do that.

Epiphanius, quotes Gregory VII. Yet Gregory, if so concerned with the welfare of Michel VII, why did he show such support for the Moslems?

And does the Catholic church really believe, "the God of Christians is the same God of Muslims?" Or was this just a statement of an individual?

I can understand desires of ecumenism, when we all believe that the only way to the Father is through Christ. But for those who deny Christ as God? When did this happen?

So do you mean to say also that we do not worship the God of the Jews? I think it's a basic commitment of historic Christianity to say that we do.

No, we do not. And I don't prescribe to the Abrahamic faith's idea. Do I really need to explain? And I completely disagree with the last statement.

Then it appears that we completely disagree.

I am not terribly interested in 'the Abrahamic faith's idea.' I believe that orthodox Christianity was at first defined by the insistence that YES, Christians do worship the God of Israel.

"Do I really need to explain?" I'm not sure if this was meant to be condescending, or just came across that way. But Yes, if you mean to say that it was not a basic insistence of historic Christianity that it did worship the selfsame God whom the Jews also claimed to worship, then yes, your statement would require a little explanation.

chadrook,

I want to clarify that I DO agree with you in distinguishing very sharply between Christian ecumenism and whatever sort of relating Christians do with the people of other religions, Judaism and Islam included.

But I don't think that rules out preferring to relate to them in ways that encourage social harmony, like wishing our neighbors Happy Hannukah or Happy Ramadan, or whatever. (Presumably that could apply even to people who aren't monotheists, no?)

No not condescending, I have fought this battle before. I will at least soften my response by taking the stance of St John of Damascus, they are at the very best heretics. And that goes for both the Moslems and Jews. It could even include most of the 33 thousand protestants.

"For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness." (Romans 10:2-3)

Everyone who denies the Son does not have the Father either. The person who confesses the Son has the Father also. (1 John 2:23)

"Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son."
- 1 John 2:22

"(...) and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world."
- 1 John 4:3

"For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist."
- 2 John 1:7

Muslims expressly deny that Jesus was the Christ; God in the flesh... and so do the 'Jews' so, at best they are heretics.

Chadrook, none of that goes against the idea that we worship the same God (though they do so incorrectly.) And this is the teaching of the Catholic Church (in Nostra Aetate, quoted above).

"Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble." James 2:19

It's surely not enough, but if even the devils believe in the one God, than the Muslims can too.

That is why I softened my response and said they are heretics at best.

They can only be heretics if they were Christians to begin with and later either came to an heretical conclusion or joined others in an "heretical camp."

But even St Augustine denied that Christians who were born into communities that were founded by heretics condemned as such by the Church could be called "heretics."

There is something of a a personal conviction in a wrong theological conclusion on the part of Christians that must be present in order for something to be truly "heretical."

In no way are Muslims "heretics" therefore.

Alex

JBenedict,

I know several Muslims whose faith and life go well beyond that of the belief of the devils.

As St Augustine said, "There are those outside the Church who seem to be in the Church; And there are those in the Church who appear to be outside of it."

That can apply to any Catholic or Orthodox Christian as well.

Alex

I know several Muslims whose faith and life go well beyond that of the belief of the devils.

Sure, but that's not the point of how I employed the quote.

Chadrook,

It was not clear to me when you said they were heretics at best that you were conceding the point about them worshipping the same God.

Alex,

I did not want to get into it. But, I don't believe they worship the same God as I do. What if I said they reject the same God? That seems to work. Both Jews and Moslems deny Christ, the Triune God, creed, and a host of other things.

I understand, I softened my response simply to avoid dragging out a premisis that we decided to disagree on, that of the idea that we worship the same God. I don't believe we do, and you do.

So, I then softened my response because I wanted to see what the position of the posters was on the idea of them being heretics. I am not Catholic, but I am curious as to the position of the Catholic church on these things.

I sometimes don't make myself clear. And it does cause confusion. I apologize. Chad

chadrook, as I said above, I think you are right to underline the difference between Christian ecumenism and our talking to or relating to people who do not share the same basic faith in Jesus Christ.

To me, however, it is very important to say that we worship the same God, because I think it was a fundamental insistence of ancient Christianity. Moreover, the Church made this insistence over and against the claims of heretics who taught that the God Christians worship was not the same God. But, this was also a fundamental insistence over and against the Jews as well--that Christians worshiped rightly the God of the Jews, and had been made heirs to the Jewish covenant. (That is to say that the Christians did claim to worship the God of the Jews, and that they insisted that the God of the Jews was the selfsame Trinity they confessed.)

Personally, I think that the Jews have a unique status in any Christian accounting of 'other religions.' We share their Scriptures and we confess the truth of those Scriptures and the covenant they promised. (And, though Muslims similarly claim to worship rightly the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, over and against the Jews and us, they do not accept our the revelation of our Scriptures but proclaim another.) Nevertheless, I think that we can perhaps talk about Islam in a way that some Jews talk about Christianity. Though we Christians (on the accounting of those Jewish thinkers) have misidentified the Messiah and have confused God's identity by calling Jesus divine, they can regard us as something a step up from simple Gentiles because we worship the true God and revere his Scriptures. In a similar way, I suppose I also think that Islam has brought monotheism to many places where idolatry prevailed, that they venerate the patriarchs, prophets, Jesus and His Mother.

I agree with you that we cannot and should not affirm Islam as 'true religion,' nor that we share the 'true religion' with them as some underlying core. I also think you are right to suspect that there probably are some who might do just this in the name of something they might (wrongly) call 'ecumenism.' However, I don't think that rules out the possibility of any and all dialogue or friendliness.

You seemed to denigrate their belief with your inclusion of the scriptural quote on the belief of devils.

It sounded almost like a comparison. Alex

Chadrook,

Certainly, the Christian God which is the Father, the Incarnate Son, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit is not the God of other faiths.

My point was simply that this does not make everyone else "heretics."

So if I was not a Christian but believed in God and was never a Christian before, I could not be called a heretic. While I would materially reject Christianity, my rejection is not about a formal acceptance or development of a Christian theological error.

Alex

Certainly, Judaism and Islam do not share our faith in the Trinity, nor confess Him to be Father, Son, and Spirit. That doesn't mean they don't worship Him.

I continue to think it's actually very important to say that our God is the 'God of Israel' and the 'God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.' To the extent that Muslims also find that important, I am willing to say that they too worship the same God, though naturally--as I think all here agree (?)--we do not believe that they know God as we know Him, since they do not accept God's unique, definitive, and complete self-revelation in Jesus Christ.

(I realize that wasn't really the point of your post.)

This has been discussed numerous times.

Spend some time with 1 Cor 13:12: "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."

Christians accept Christ and know him through the Cross and Resurrection but still see through a glass, darkly.

Jews have a relationship with the same God but, because they do not know Him through the Cross and Resurrection, the glass they seem him through is darker and cloudier. Nevertheless, He is the same Lord and the same God.

Muslims also have a relationship with the same God. For them, however, the glass they see Him through is almost totally dark. They can detect His presence, and the guesses about Him are mostly erroneous. Nevertheless, He is the same Lord and the same God.

A parallel with Acts 17:22-23 is not exact, but it can serve by way of example: Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you.

As Christians, our ministry towards those who know God but don't know much about Him (or have made erroneous conclusions about Who-He-Is) is to tell them about Jesus (firstly, by example). Note that Paul acknowledges (17:32-34) that they were religious, and teaches them with respect. Some mocked Paul, others were skeptical but did not close the door to his message (and were willing to hear him again). And "some men joined him and believed".

Dear eastwardlean,

Always a pleasure to speak with and learn from an intelligent person such as yourself (and the Administrator, of course, is no slouch either).

I think though that montheists could be said to have similar ideas about Who God is in His One Divine Nature.

But even here there are notable differences. In Muslim thought, God can do whatever He pleases. This contrasts with the Christian perspective that suggests that since God is Love, God will not do what is against His Nature.

Another example is when Christian, Jewish and Muslim scholars once gathered to discuss, among other things, the Our Father prayer (and, of course, they published a book with their discussions). What struck me as telling is when the Jewish and Muslim scholars accepted everything in the Our Father prayer EXCEPT where it says "Thy Will be done . . ."

At this, the Jewish and Muslim scholars parted company with the Christians and said that if we are praying that God's Will be done . . . what is the purpose of praying to begin with? Why pray then? And the argument went on from there.

What I'm suggesting is that from the human vantage point, we only understand God through the prisms of our own limited perspectives (which is what the Administrator is talking about above).

Even with varying levels of revelation about God that God Himself reveals to us, we are still at this basic, fundamental disadvantage.

Our Lord Himself, in talking with the Samaritan Woman at Jacob's Well, told her that the Jews worship what they knew, but that the Samaritans (who could symbolize all other religions), worship what they do not know (again, this underscores what the Administrator has said).

So there is a qualitative difference between human understandings of Who God is, which we already agree on. We worship our own "icon" of God which is based on how we see Him which understanding comes from our own experience, but primarily from the environment of our faith and culture.

And there are better "icons" of God and worse ones that reflect themselves not only in worship, but also in behaviour.

The icon of a God Who assumes our flesh and is nailed to a Cross while forgiving His enemies is distinct from a God whom other people may see as being angry, vengeful, exacting and unforgiving.

We can say that we all worship the same God or Divine Nature. But I believe that is far from the whole story.

A Catholic theologian I used to read when I was growing up, Louis Evely, (who got himself into a lot of trouble later on), once said that, "Christians are no better than others, but the God they worship is better."

In another place he once wrote, "For what do we congratulate God on Trinity Sunday? That He does not live as a celibate, that He is Three rather than just One."

Yes, we worship the same God. But how we perceive Him based on how we see Him revealing Himself to us makes all the difference.

The difference being between a Suffering God Who is Love and another type of god who is anything but.

The latter view is not God, and to worship him is to invite anything but love and peace into our lives.

And Christians are just as capable of worshipping the wrong icon of God as anyone else, even as they confess the Trinity in Unity.

Where I will disagree with the Administrator (which might not be a disagreement, I don't know at this moment) is with respect to the statement of the images of God other people have based on their respective religions. Grace can work in people who are not Christian and Christians can reject Grace.

Ultimately, how we live our lives in God is what defines us for what we are before the Lord.

Enough of me for one night.

Alex

Not as idealized as you may think. The fact is that despite appearances, violent Muslims are still a minority. The ones who are peaceful can point to many peaceful passages in the Qur'an, and often have different interpretations of the violent ones.

So, I think Pope Francis has good reason to want to reach out to them: first of all, because they're God's children, and second, because if we maintain good relations with the peaceful majority of Muslims, they'll be less likely to end up joining forces with the violent ones.

Not the "vast" majority--at least not anymore--but even if they're losing ground they're still a significant number.

Not "reasoned away," no. (But don't forget that God's power is greater than all their hatred!)

Of course not! The ones that have already made up their minds aren't going to change them. It's with the ones who aren't so fanatical that there's always a chance.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

I see it as politically correct nonsense.

Islam is a false religion, and so Islamic "faith" has no salvific value. How can it? Seeing that it is founded upon an explicit denial of the dogma of the Trinity.

I do not agree. The false god of Islam is the creator of both good and evil, he causes men to be both good and sinful, and this belief is utterly contrary to the Christian faith.

Moreover, when it comes to the teaching of St. Paul in the Acts of the Apostles he is talking about a type of preparation for the Gospel found in pre-Christians beliefs, but Islam is a post-Christian belief founded upon an explicit rejection of the dogmas of the Trinity and the Incarnation. As scripture says:

"This is the anti-Christ, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father. He who confesses the Son has the Father also. Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you will abide in the Son and in the Father. And this is what he has promised us, eternal life."

It must never be forgotten that Muhammad is an anti-Christ.

Popes have been wrong before and there will no doubt be popes in the future who promote error.

It is not possible to adore God and deny the dogma of the Trinity at the same time.

I agree with my brother above, with one caveat: It is much more accurate to acknowledge the Oneness of God, and worship God that much more closer to Truth than not (atheism, polytheism, etc). We can hope and pray that this sliver of Truth leads to a fuller more complete understanding for them in this lifetime.

What of the Jews?

Speaking of such individuals, go to EWTN and look for the Journey Home with guest Talat Strokirk, former Muslim.

Rabbinic Judaism is not Biblical Judaism. It is a new faith - it could even be called a Christian heresy - created after Christ's ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension into heaven. It is a "faith" predicated upon a denial of the coming of the Messiah, and as such it does not give worship to God the Father, because it rejects God the Son.

St. Gregory of Nyssa in his "Great Catechism" disagrees, for he taught that monotheism of the Jews of his day, which rejects the tri-hypostatic existence of God, is just as false as the polytheism of the Greek pagans, which denied the unity of the divine nature. The true faith is triune.

Apotheoun, though it is true that the Great Catechetical Oration does situates Christianity as a mean between two errors, namely, Judaism and polytheism. This is a rhetorical trope that organizes St. Gregory's presentation. I am not aware that he anywhere says there is no difference between pagans and the Jews of his day. You are right in insisting that 'the true faith is triune.'

I agree wholeheartedly with you that biblical Israel and Judaism after Christ cannot be simply equated, in a Christian view. Nevertheless, that the Jews after Christ continue to occupy a unique place for Christians is not my own invention, nor that of Nostra Aetate. The idea that God's promise applies in some manner still to the people who seemingly have rejected its fulfillment. and the thought that it might be made good in an eschatological conversion of that other Israel is old and had legs throughout Christian history, presumably under the weight of St. Paul, also the principal warrant for the treatment of Nostra Aetate.

No argument there, but what about beliefs that are closer and less close to the Truth? Atheism is farther from true than theism; Christian protestantism closer to the truth than non-Christians; Monotheism closer than polytheism, etc.?

Monotheism and polytheism are equally close and equally distant to the one true faith, and that is why St. Gregory condemned both equally (i.e., both the monotheism of the Jews and the polytheism of the Greeks).

It is a rhetorical trope to you perhaps, but to me it is a dogmatic truth. I reject theological indifferentism as contrary to the faith, and as an affront to the Great Commission given by Christ the Lord when He personally sent them out to convert the world to faith in the triune God.

As far as Vatican II is concerned, I see many of its decrees as indifferentist nonsense, and I see no reason to accept what the bishops there said on issues that are clearly not divinely revealed (e.g., who Muslims worship). Having studied Islam I can say for a fact that it does not believe in the true God, because the true God is not the cause of evil, while the "god" of Islam is held to be the cause of sin, death, and evil.

The word "them" in the sentence below should say "the Apostles."

"I reject theological indifferentism as contrary to the faith, and as an affront to the Great Commission given by Christ the Lord when He personally sent them [i.e., the Apostles] out to convert the world to faith in the triune God."

I should probably make it clear that I do not find references or quotations from the documents of Vatican II all that important. Quite frankly, Vatican II is irrelevant to me.

As far as the original topic of this thread is concerned, I think it is pointless to wish Muslims a "happy ramadan." It would be better to preach the Good News of Christ to them and in so doing help to bring them out of error and darkness into the truth and light that is found only in Christ Jesus.

Dear Todd,

You mean well, but you are completely wrong here.

Do you mean that everyone who does not believe in the Holy Trinity is damned? There is NO salvific value in any other religion? (Vatican II notwithstanding).

Your position is yours. It is not the Catholic one.

As for you preaching to the Muslims, I would love to see the youtube video!

Todd,

So you are formally Orthodox? Frankly, if you are not - you are just as indifferent. Certainly, the Orthodox themselves would see you as such.

Alex

I am not sure on what grounds a person could credibly claim as dogmatic truth what the Church has never claimed. That St. Gregory distinguishes the true faith from polytheism on the one hand and Jewish monism on the other in no way amounts to your claim that Jews are not categorically different from pagans. Your rejection of 'theological indifferentism' is irrelevant here. You claim something for St. Gregory's work that he himself doesn't claim. When I point this out, you respond that you reject 'theological indifferentism.' I am not sure why my question should be construed as relativistic in any sense whatsoever.

I am equally puzzled by your statements about Vatican II. I didn't appeal to Nostra Aetate to clinch an argument; I said that the categorical uniqueness of the Jews in Christian theology was not invented by me or by Nostra Aetate. Rather, it is characteristic of the Christian tradition. To reaffirm your opposition to 'theological indifferentism' on this point is to change the subject.

It is not relativist to give your friend's kid a card for his bar mitzvah. It is polite. To make of it some kind of litmus test for fidelity to the Gospel is totally idiosyncratic. Would my friend--or his kid--conclude that I had renounced my Christianity because I gave him the card? About as much or more than Muslims have concluded that Pope Francis has renounced his by wishing them a happy Ramadan.

Eastwardlean,

The Trinity is the dogma par excellence, and anyone who denies it does not worship God. Now I know that many modern Catholics have a problem with dogmatic truth and prefer theological indifferentism, but I cannot agree with that position, for as scripture makes clear, if you do not have the Son you do not have the Father.

God bless,
Todd

You can do what you want. I can't stop you from wishing Muslims a "happy ramandan" if that is what you want to do, but I see no point in it. I prefer to tell the Muslims that I know about Christ, but you may do as you wish.

As a Melkite I am already Orthodox. Will I remain a Melkite for the rest of my life? That is hard to say. The spiritual life is a journey, and so I cannot exclude the possibility of conversion to Eastern Orthodoxy at some point in the future.

I have not spoken about the eternal destiny of any individual; instead, I have simply stated that there is only one way of salvation, and that that way is through Christ. There is no salvation in following Muhammad or his vile teachings.

I have had discussions with Muslims in the past, how could I not do so, after all my second BA degree at SFSU involved an Islamic component. That said, the whole time I pushed the standard modern Catholic approach to Islam the only result was that Muslims felt confirmed in their false belief, while they simultaneously thought that I was ripe for conversion to Muhammadanism. It was only when I gave up the indifferentist views advocated by Vatican II that I even began to make headway with Muslims in personal discussions about doctrinal issues.

Wow an academic grounded in reality. If you want to hear about the real face of Islam, I certainly have some experience with it. Sure, I have talked to Muslims in America. But I have also fought the rabid Islamist. The Chechen with fresh blood on his hands. The twelve year old bent on killing me.

If you believe there are only arms length Christians think again. Even in the world of Islam you find them. You think they are indifferent to what is going on, but you are wrong. They are just as self serving as Christians. And when it comes down to brass tacks they will stone the fourteen year old girl to death just for taking some candy from a soldier.

I didn't see everyone rush out and take up arms to protect Americas interest. But the majority supported combat actions. Same thing with Islam. And to be honest, I can respect the Islamist. They are at least principled. We cant even agree that there is a problem.

Dear Todd,

You are a most admirable Christian who lives so very close to our Lord and His Church, who is also so articulate theologically and every which way.

I just don't see the problem with wishing a member of any world religion a happy feast day they happen to observe.

I work with Muslim colleagues in an organization that builds homes for the homeless. We understand and, yes, respect our differences. Headway can be made in that context as well.

Have a great day.

Alex

I totally agree. I said something similar about 4 pages ago before the topic became more theological in nature.


Maybe we should leave it at this and not judge the Pope so much?

The Eastern Fathers and monastic saints had a lot to say about judging! It is probably one of our most tempting sins, and one which our tongue and our 'logismoi' (thoughts) engage in more than anything else...

In Christ,
Alice

I would also add, wishing a generic Happy Ramadan by the Holy Father, Eastern Patriarchs, and local clergy leads to many lives on the ground being physically saved. Isn't this practical incentive enough?

In an ecumenical spirit,( ) I would like to offer this article of Patriarch Bartholomew offering the same good wishes for Ramadan two years ago..


Hundreds of Orthodox pilgrims gather for second service at Sümela Monastery

Orthodox worshippers attend the Virgin Mary service led by Fener Greek Patriarch Bartholomew at the ancient Sümela Monastery in the Black Sea coastal province of Trabzon.

15 August 2011 /TODAYSZAMAN.COM

Nearly 1,000 Orthodox Christians gathered for a historic service at Sümela Monastery in the Black Sea coastal province of Trabzon early Monday, marking the second religious ceremony held at the monastery in the history of the Turkish Republic.

The Divine Liturgy, held on the occasion of the Feast of the Dormition of the Theotokos according to the Orthodox liturgical calendar (also known as the Assumption of Mary), was officiated by İstanbul-based Fener Greek Patriarch Bartholomew I. Pilgrims from Greece, Russia, Georgia and other countries traveled to the monastery, which currently serves as a museum. Around 500 pilgrims were admitted to the monastery during the service, and the remaining participants watched the event from large screens set up outside Sümela.

Beginning the homily by saying “Our Muslim brothers,” Bartholomew thanked the Turkish government, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and the Ministry of Culture and Tourism for allowing a second service at Sümela. Stating that Mary has a special place for both Muslims and Christians, he recalled a Quran verse which says: “And (remember) when the angels said: ‘O Maryam (Mary)! Verily, Allah has chosen you, purified you (from polytheism and disbelief), and chosen you above the women of the ‘Alamin' (mankind and jinns) (of her lifetime),” the patriarch called for peace and brotherhood in Turkey and in the world during his speech.

“The peace that we long for is vital, in particular during these days. We cannot rid ourselves of the burden of the tragic events in Norway yet. There is ongoing bloodshed in neighboring countries. Mothers are crying in our country. … Let's make a call from the high Sümela Mountain, from the presence of the feet of the Virgin Mary -- who is above all women -- to all Christians and Muslims for us, for humanity and for our future. This call can be a single word: peace, peace, peace. Mutual respect and love should be our only prayer,” the patriarch said.

Bartholomew also wished Muslim a happy Ramadan and Eid al-Fitr. “May God accept your fasts,” he added.

The monastery was abandoned after the foundation of the Turkish Republic and the subsequent population exchange between Turks and Greeks. It has since become a major tourist destination along Turkey's Black Sea coast.

The Turkish government last year allowed for an annual religious service to be held at the monastery in a gradual loosening of restrictions on religious expression. The government accepted the patriarchate's request to hold last year's celebration of the Feast of the Dormition of the Theotokos on Aug. 15 at Sümela Monastery. The service was again officiated by Fener Greek Patriarch Bartholomew.
Armenians celebrate ‘Feast of the Virgin Mary'

The Feast of the Virgin Mary was celebrated in Vakıflı, Turkey's only Armenian village, located in the province of Hatay, on Sunday. Many Armenians from various provinces in Turkey and also those from Syria, Germany and Lebanon attended the service. The bishop of the Hatay Armenian Church, Avediş Tabaşyan, presided over the service while Deputy Patriarch Aram Ateşyan joined as a guest.

Ateşyan said that every year on the Sunday nearest to Aug. 15, Armenians from around the world come to Turkey to join the celebration.

This year, the Feast of the Virgin Mary coincides with Ramadan. “Christians and Muslims are celebrating at the same time. In this time of fasting, I hope the fasts of our Muslim brothers and sisters are good and are accepted. Without fasting, prayer and charity work is not accepted,” Ateşyan said.

Todd, I'm not disputing with you about this central claim--I doubt many here are. If you think I am, then your statements against relativism are more understandable to me. You seem to see your insistence that Jews and Muslims don't worship the true God as a corollary or extension of that basic claim. All I am saying is that most of the Christian tradition has not seen it that way.

Actually IT IS Catholic position. It is just not being enforced

Dear Mother Alice,

That Patriarch of yours . . . I think he's worse than the Pope!

When Our Lady appeared above the Coptic Church at Zeitun in Cairo, many Muslims came out to revere. One of our own priests from St Nicholas UGCC parish went there at the time and saw how Muslims were placing expensive prayer rugs on the sand in front of the Church (or was it a Cathedral?).

As they do on other Christian festivals in other places, Muslims joined with Orthodox, Catholics and, yes, even Evangelical Protestants in praising Maryam as she appeared over the dome of that Church (marking the spot, according to tradition, where the Holy Family stayed whilst in Egypt).

Perhaps a good Mother might not make a distinction between her children at such a time . . .

Thank you for posting this, Mother Alice!

Alex

I see no point in wishing someone "happy ramadan." In fact that sentiment is like wishing someone happiness in his embracing of error. True happiness will not be found by observing ramadan; instead, true happiness comes from following and giving glory to Christ, the sole savior of mankind.

I will never wish someone happiness in following the religious deception promulgated by Muhammad.

Here's an essay by Met. Georges Khodr of Mount Lebanon about the start of Ramadan. When you're talking about your friends and neighbors and not theological abstractions, it becomes harder to dismiss them.

http://araborthodoxy.blogspot.com/2011/08/met-georges-khodr-on-ramadan.html

"Ramadan is a month for all of us, whether we refrain from food or refrain from sin. It is not right for a Muslim to be practicing his asceticism and for us to not support him with prayer. He believes that his fast was decreed for him. You should ask blessings, health, and purity for him so that he can reach the highest point of his struggle and benefit all people through his nighttime prayer.

It saddens me that some of us welcome the iftars to which our friends invite us without our hearts going to the fast itself, that is to turning away from this world and its pleasures insofar as we are happy for Muslims to draw near to God and His generosity.

We accept Muslims because God accepts them in the purity of their worship."

Funny!

What a beautiful and intelligent article by His Beatitude Metropolitan Khodr!

Amen to it!

Alex

Is "Alice" your real name in Greek? (If it's any of my business).

Alex

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.

BEAUTIFULLY SAID!!

Here we go. Its not a matter of being a jerk. Its a matter of the actions of the leadership. Laity exchanging greetings in the work place is one thing, Bishops and priest another.

The Muslims I knew at SFSU did not wish me a "Merry Christmas," and even told me that they thought it was an idolatrous festival. I took no personal offense at their remarks, because I understood that they saw such things as compromising their "faith." My own views have formed over the years because of my involvement with Muslims in the SF Bay Area. I have no animosity toward Muslims as human beings, why would I? After all they are created in the image of God. Nevertheless, the Islamic "faith" is a vile deception, and I will never compromise in dealing with it.

Religious relativism is popular at the present time in the West, but it is a very modern thing, and I have not seen the Church's relativistic views, which try to legitimize Islamic beliefs, bring anyone to Christ. My own personal interaction with Muslims over the past 15 years reveals that the indifferentism promoted in the Church today is seen as weakness by most Muslims, and that Christians really do not believe in the doctrines that they espouse.

I would simply add that there is nothing discourteous in not saying "happy ramadan" to someone. I don't tell people "happy kwanza" either, and no one has ever called me a jerk or said that I was discourteous for not saying that greeting.

The Pope said, “I also think with affection of those Muslim immigrants who this evening begin the fast of Ramadan, which I trust will bear abundant spiritual fruit. The Church is at your side as you seek a more dignified life for yourselves and your families. To all of you: o’scià!”

He didn't say "happy ramadan" or that it definitely will be spiritually beneficial, only that he hopes it will be. He didn't say the Church supports their beliefs, only that these immigrants have a better life in leaving their homeland and coming to Italy.

I totally understand the posters here, and Islam is indeed a great threat to the world, however, they are also a majority in many countries where Christians live and thus, it would be irresponsible of a political leader to not at least try to be polite and to emphasize the spiritual commonalities of both, as Patriarch Bartholomew did. What better time than during Ramadan, where Muslims, like Eastern Christians, fast and try to repent of their sins?

With uncovered plots for the assassination of the Ecumenical Patriarch yearly, and with the very survival of Patriarchate of Constantinople in Turkey at great jeopardy, anything offensive would have dire ramifications. The greater good is always taken into account by leaders.

'You catch more bees with honey'....

Did not the Virgin Mary herself appear in a form unprecedented in ecclisiastical history to Christians and Muslims alike in Zitoun, Egypt?

We should pray for Christ to change their hearts and mindset. Nothing can be accomplished without it. Who ever thought that the evil of atheistic communism would fall? What man cannot accomplish, prayer and the mercy of God through His most Holy Mother can.

btw, my Muslim friends wish me "Happy Easter" and "Merry Christmas" every year!

I totally understand the posters here, and Islam is indeed a great threat to the world, however, they are also a majority in many countries where Christians live and thus, it would be irresponsible of a political leader to not at least try to be polite and to emphasize the spiritual commonalities of both, as Patriarch Bartholomew did. What better time than during Ramadan, where Muslims, like Eastern Christians, fast and try to repent of their sins?

With uncovered plots for the assassination of the Ecumenical Patriarch yearly, and with the very survival of Patriarchate of Constantinople in Turkey at great jeopardy, anything offensive would have dire ramifications. The greater good is always taken into account by leaders.

'You catch more bees with honey'....

Did not the Virgin Mary herself appear in a form unprecedented in ecclisiastical history to Christians and Muslims alike in Zitoun, Egypt?

We should pray for Christ to change their hearts and mindset. Nothing can be accomplished without it. Who ever thought that the evil of atheistic communism would fall? What man cannot accomplish, prayer and the mercy of God through His most Holy Mother can.

His desire that the new immigrants find a dignified life for themselves in their new homes is commendable, but as far as the comment about gaining "spiritual fruit" from the observance of a false religion is concerned, I respectfully dissent from that theological nonsense. As far as hope is concerned, our Hope is in Christ.

I am pleased that you have had that experience. Nevertheless, I will never wish someone happiness in the observance of religious error.

I would only ask what about the martyrs? Are we all not called to be martyrs for the faith? I am sure that the martyrs prayed for their tormentors, but to the Christian God.

And I don't understand the statement of the Pope being a political leader? Or the EP for that matter. I always thought this was expressly prohibited. I can see a gray area though, but in cases of meeting bodily needs. Food, clothing, shelter, but spiritual and political?

As far as the Theotokos appearing to the faithful in Egypt, I would venture to say hind sight is 20/20. It was a warning. She is with us during times of persecution. Not the first time she has had a miraculous appearance before great calamity.

Very easy for you to say, from the safety and comfort of Kansas.

I've said to many Catholics, Orthodox, and protestants regarding protestant leadership (clergy, excluding laity) are teaching a false Gospel, one without real hope and that their teachings and systems are not Apostolic and therefore not really Christian. The laity are not culpable, since they are not as educated or learned as the leaders. What do you say about this position I take? Most folks think I'm being too harsh or rigid.

Agreed.

Not to lessen the impact of your statement, which has merrit. But I have served in 42 countries, 7 combat zones, 5 humanitarian missions, and a list of other interactions with the religion of peace. Ever have a fatwa issued on you?

I know quite well what it is like to wrestle everyday with the thought in the back of your head that if captured alive that I wont stay like that for long. Knowing that I will be on another video handed over to civil affairs, that the American public will never see. Thinking that it might save my hide to convert in such an instance. I might not know what it is like to live my whole life in a place like that, but I do know what it is like to be a target in a place like that.

I don't presume to be in the ivory towers of academia, nor do I have the know it all attitude. But, if you want to talk about the face of Islam, then I do know something of it.

I agree, most evangelical type Protestants (as opposed to "main line" Protestants) have no interest in dialogue with us as we are "unsaved" and indistinguishable to them. Many seem to be Trinitarian in name only anyway.... (as in praying " In Jesus' name" rather than in the name ofthe Triune God.)

I dont understand. You agree with this yet you attack someone else for their appearance? What am I missing? Did you not say this?

(I have to note my inherent dislike of the trend among some Orthodox to behave and dress as if they were living in a Russian village on the steppes during the 19th century. I struggle with being judgmental in this regard but to me, I just don't get it. A person can dress modestly without calling attention to oneself.I find the matter troubling.)

Maybe I'm being too strict in my thinking because as far as I'm concerned, most have the same muddled theology and false constructs. I got into it with a couple clergy persons regarding the limited God they created, one which has no jurisdiction over the dead or anything outside their scope of understanding. Another lay person, a relative, told me one MUST pray ONLY IN JESUS NAME - every other prayer is unBiblical, he said. I say no, you can pray to the Father or the Holy Spirit just as well. He replied, No that's not in the Bible. Then I replied, what about the Our Father? Christ prayed to the Father, not in Jesus name and he said we should all pray like this. Do you pray this prayer? Do you add "extra" (un) Biblical "Jesus name" prayers?

I am not saying anything shocking here, but let's face facts, the Catholic Church is in decline.

Why is it in decline? Because very few Catholics are interested in trying to bring others to the faith, and are more interested in simply maintaining the status quo (e.g., Catholics will fall to just over half the population of Brazil over the next 10 to 15 years, and fall to about 50 percent of the population of Latin America as a whole).

When I converted to Catholicism in 1987 it was not because I was approached by a Catholic. Nope, the Catholics I knew at the time were uninterested in sharing their faith in Christ.

How was I converted? I read the writings of the Church Fathers for eight years and finally decided I needed to become Catholic.

What happened when I approached a parish about converting? The priest told me to remain Episcopalian, because the Episcopal Church needed good people. He told me to be "the best Episcopalian you can be."

What did I do? I ignored him and I went to a different Catholic parish and thankfully the priest at that Church arranged for me to join the RCIA program.

Maybe if Catholics (especially Catholic leaders) were less concerned about being politically correct, and instead tried to actually convert people (in particular Muslims) to Christianity, the Church would be healthier.

You're in for a real shock if you were ever to review correspondence of the Byzantine period, both between the Great Church of Constantinople and the Muslim authorities, and between the God-Beloved Emperor and the Muslim authorities. They maintained a courteous and diplomatic relationship over the course of almost 800 years, during which time exchanges of good will for major feasts (to say nothing of important births, weddings and other social events) were not only a matter of course, but scrupulously detailed in books of etiquette and protocol (such as Constantine V's de Ceremonis). Maintaining harmonious relations is not a matter of compromising on doctrine, but rather a prudential approach that furthered the interests of Empire and Church alike.

You might also consider that more than a few of the Fathers, like John of Damascus, lived under Muslim rule and saw it in the interests of the Church not to antagonize the Muslims with undue hostility.

I agree that there was a protocol for the Emperor and his court, but what of the patriarch?

De Ceremoniis of Constantine the VII was a ceremonial protocol at the court of the Eastern Roman emperor in Constantinople. So civility in matters of state I can understand. To a point. I have seen where that has gone horribly wrong.

Also, I am sure you will find something in the 1400 years of the empire that points to the ecumenical actions of patriarchs, but come on. Isn't that cherry picking data?

I am interested in your statement of "both between the Great Church of Constantinople and the Muslim authorities," is it still the Byzantine period if Constantinople has already fallen? Or are you simply stating the correspondence between the church and the Muslims during the period?

Lastly, are you suggesting the Pope is acting like St. John? I ask only out of curiosity, not to start a fight. Is is really later than I think?

Me agree too.

Chadrook,

Then you know, as well, about the need for diplomacy and courtesy when dealing with other cultures and faiths.

And what happens when U.S. soldiers are disrespectful to other cultures and faiths.

To be courteous is not to agree with what a person believes in.

Alex

All I can say is that is a one way street. How many churches in Saudi Arabia? How many mosque in Rome, Moscow and Washington D.C.?

Another thing is what constitutes disrespect. Did my guys know that it was disrespectful to give candy to a preteen girl? No. They stoned her to death anyways.

Might I remind the participants that the way we treat others is not determined by how they treat us? We treat others as Christ would treat them. We treat others as if each was Christ Himself.

That is not the issue here.

Perhaps this represents an example of Christian-Muslim neighborliness that is less troubling on the theological grounds that are a concern for Todd and/or Chad?

http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/articles/2013/07/22/reportage-01

It is the whole reason from which Pope Francis sends greetings to Muslims.