Ecumenism

[Aloysius]

I wouldnt have needed Hassan to 'pit me against you', you did that yourself when you called me insulting. Now, I have explained myself and I assume it was a simple misunderstanding, I know the words "they do not have faith" will seem jarring and insulting to those who are used to the secular definition of what faith is. as I said, I have no intention of going around telling non Catholics they don't have faith; and cmom's suggestion of they dont have "the faith" may be a decent way of wording it, though I might clarify since that seems to be simply saying they don't have "the Catholic religion" and I might even say that of non-Catholic Christians, that they do not have "the grace of faith"... non Catholic Christians certainly have the grace of faith whereas non-Christians do not have the grace of faith. and all this leads me to my original point that it is more accurate to call dialogue with non-Christians "interreligious dialogue" and that we should only use the word "faith" to define Christian religions.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1801318' date='Mar 9 2009, 11:23 AM']I wouldnt have needed Hassan to 'pit me against you', you did that yourself when you called me insulting. Now, I have explained myself and I assume it was a simple misunderstanding, I know the words "they do not have faith" will seem jarring and insulting to those who are used to the secular definition of what faith is. as I said, I have no intention of going around telling non Catholics they don't have faith; and cmom's suggestion of they dont have "the faith" may be a decent way of wording it, though I might clarify since that seems to be simply saying they don't have "the Catholic religion" and I might even say that of non-Catholic Christians, that they do not have "the grace of faith"... non Catholic Christians certainly have the grace of faith whereas non-Christians do not have the grace of faith. and all this leads me to my original point that it is more accurate to call dialogue with non-Christians "interreligious dialogue" and that we should only use the word "faith" to define Christian religions.[/quote]

When does a heretical movement push a group from being non Catholic Christians to be non Christians all together?

[Aloysius]

when their baptisms are invalid. they must baptize "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" with water and intend to do as the Church does, whether or not they know or understand what it is that the Church does. our religion operates under supernatural assumptions about the efficacy of sacraments regardless of how they manifest in human ways.

now, one who believes in Jesus and has, through no fault of their own, fallen into an error by which they do not get themselves baptized but by his intellect and Christian actions clearly would have been baptized had he known what that sacrament was may be said to have a baptism of desire, ie all the effects of baptism applied to him if he dies before ever being baptized.

but yeah, it all comes down to baptism, and ANYONE can baptize in an emergency.. a heretic, an apostate, a pagan, et cetera. Anyone who has been baptized is a Christian even if they're a heretic, they're an apostate (not a Christian by religion) if they abandon all faith in Jesus Christ and turn against him, but so long as they're baptized and call upon Jesus they're a Christian even if they hold a host of heresies.

the Catholic Church does not recognize Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses as Christians because their baptisms are false, but she recognizes almost every other group that calls itself Christian as such so long as their baptisms are valid. it's not an act of man that makes one a Christian, but an act of God who will operate through anyone who validly baptizes.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1800930' date='Mar 8 2009, 10:13 PM']if I say "you don't have faith"

but not if I merely call their religions religions and their beliefs beliefs... and refer to the dialogue as interreligious, does anyone really notice? how many people are out there demanding that the term "faith" refer to their religion?[/quote]
Again, I'm not disagreeing with you,

but if the people you are talking to find out the reason you call it religion, and not faith, yea, they may demand that you call it a bona fide faith. They won't be technically correct, but really, that doesn't stop anyone these days.
I'm sure the Protestants are ticked that we don't call them "churches" in the proper sense.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1804437' date='Mar 12 2009, 04:39 AM']I'm sure the Protestants are ticked that we don't call them "churches" in the proper sense.[/quote]
Yes, at least some of them are. I don't think my family are too happy about that, at least.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' post='1804686' date='Mar 12 2009, 11:38 AM']Yes, at least some of them are. I don't think my family are too happy about that, at least.[/quote]
Would they prefer the term "cult"?

[Hassan]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1804858' date='Mar 12 2009, 01:49 PM']Would they prefer the term "cult"?[/quote]


I don't know. Would you appreciate it if I used that term for your church?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1804860' date='Mar 12 2009, 12:51 PM']I don't know. Would you appreciate it if I used that term for your church?[/quote]
See why we don't have 'interreligious dialogue' with atheists?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1804922' date='Mar 12 2009, 04:11 PM']See why we don't have 'interreligious dialogue' with atheists?

[/quote]

[Hassan]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1804922' date='Mar 12 2009, 03:11 PM']See why we don't have 'interreligious dialogue' with atheists?

[/quote]


My agnosticism has long been debunked.

I am a secret Muslim

Give me some Jizyah

[Aloysius]

you may refer to our Church as a cult, but more properly as a collection of many cults. In the old sense of the word, of course.

the Protestants should be happy they get the term "ecclesial communities" from us, which translates as "church-like communities"... that's a sign of respect from us that probably wouldn't have been offered from a pre-Vatican II pope. sorry, but it's as far as we can go because they simply do not have an historical connection to the churches founded by the Apostles... and no one but an Apostle of Our Lord Jesus Christ can really found a Church.

I honestly don't think most non-Christian religions even have much of an attachment to the word "faith" as a word which defines their religion. If they do have such an attachment, I would merely say to them, "you have, then, been sucked into the outer peripherals of a Christocentric conception of things, as you now define your religion in terms of a Christian concept."... now, the Jews do certainly have a claim to use the word "faith" in a certain sense, though I do not know that they have a true history of using it as a definition of their religion, ie "the Jewish faith", that seems to me to be a modern Christocentric construct. I could be wrong, but I would have to see some historical context of them referring to themselves in that way. I am sure the Muslims too have a definition of that word and a usage of that word, but historically it would seem not in line with their conception of their religion to refer to themselves as "the Muslim faith"... again, I could be wrong, but terminology like this seems as if it's been imported from our religion and is a clear corruption of their own religions' understanding of itself. if nothing else, I know that none of the non-Abrahimic religions should use that word to refer to their religion.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1805882' date='Mar 13 2009, 05:12 AM']you may refer to our Church as a cult, but more properly as a collection of many cults. In the old sense of the word, of course.

the Protestants should be happy they get the term "ecclesial communities" from us, which translates as "church-like communities"... that's a sign of respect from us that probably wouldn't have been offered from a pre-Vatican II pope. sorry, but it's as far as we can go because they simply do not have an historical connection to the churches founded by the Apostles... and no one but an Apostle of Our Lord Jesus Christ can really found a Church.

I honestly don't think most non-Christian religions even have much of an attachment to the word "faith" as a word which defines their religion. If they do have such an attachment, I would merely say to them, "you have, then, been sucked into the outer peripherals of a Christocentric conception of things, as you now define your religion in terms of a Christian concept."... now, the Jews do certainly have a claim to use the word "faith" in a certain sense, though I do not know that they have a true history of using it as a definition of their religion, ie "the Jewish faith", that seems to me to be a modern Christocentric construct. I could be wrong, but I would have to see some historical context of them referring to themselves in that way. I am sure the Muslims too have a definition of that word and a usage of that word, but historically it would seem not in line with their conception of their religion to refer to themselves as "the Muslim faith"... again, I could be wrong, but terminology like this seems as if it's been imported from our religion and is a clear corruption of their own religions' understanding of itself. if nothing else, I know that none of the non-Abrahimic religions should use that word to refer to their religion.[/quote]

Imam is very important in Islam. I can't speak for Judaism. I once had a Jewish girl flip out on me because I said Judaism was a religion of law and not faith. I intended absolutly no offense by this but she took it rather personally. I had made a very basic mistake of reading Jewish philosophers and from that making assumptions about how ordionary Jews view their religion. From the philosophers I have heard the following. Faith is an inner subjective state, like love or hatred, which cannot be controlled by the individual, at least not to the extent that a just God could demand we conform our inner subjective emotions to his will. Rather a man may be judged as rightous by his adherence to the law. I've even read a Jewish philosopher claim that a faith in God is not necessary to be a faithful Jew (although obviously that is a theoretical point, praticually it makes little sense to be an observant Jew who does not beleive in God) his argument being that there are exactly 613 laws one must obey to be a faithful Jew and a faith in God is not one of them.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1805882' date='Mar 13 2009, 07:12 AM']the Protestants should be happy they get the term "ecclesial communities" from us, which translates as "church-like communities"... that's a sign of respect from us that probably wouldn't have been offered from a pre-Vatican II pope. sorry, but it's as far as we can go because they simply do not have an historical connection to the churches founded by the Apostles... and no one but an Apostle of Our Lord Jesus Christ can really found a Church.[/quote]

Of course, most of us are not engaged in formal ecumenical dialogue. In conversations with our cousin or neighbor down the street, the word "church" can be used because the English language defines the word more loosely than the Congregation for Divine Worship. But it's good to understand this stuff because the questions sometimes arise when they hear some random news story that pope says Baptist churches aren't churches, which makes no sense until we understand that the issue is with two definitions of the word "church."

Edited March 13, 2009 by LouisvilleFan