Comments on: The limits of interfaith dialogue

By: LLB

LLB — Mon, 11 Jun 2012 11:18:31 +0000

How about Peter Kreeft’s “What I learned From a Muslim about Eucharistic Adoration”

By: bpeters1

bpeters1 — Mon, 11 Jun 2012 03:49:20 +0000

On first read, I had the impression that you were sympathetic toward the position of Pera which you cited (namely, that truth cannot be discovered via dialogue, at least by Christians). On second reading, I see that you did indeed leave the matter open at the end. Please consider my post above as a rejoinder to Pera’s position, rather than toward whatever your own might be.

By: Stephen Kokx

Stephen Kokx — Mon, 11 Jun 2012 02:39:55 +0000

@bpeters1: Thank you for your insight on Dominus Iesus and Nostra Aetate. I’m sure not all Catholics are familiar with them. But realize that I never advocated for a “closed” church or the belief that “the Church can’t gain or ‘learn’ anything through inter-religious dialogue.” I left an open ended question at the end of the post.

By: B. Gnotta Freude

B. Gnotta Freude — Mon, 11 Jun 2012 01:41:19 +0000

I guess you didn’t care for it too much when Pope John Paul II dialogued with Fidel Castro about a decade ago. Or did you miss that?

By: bpeters1

bpeters1 — Mon, 11 Jun 2012 01:25:28 +0000

@Stephen: you wrote, "Pera writes, 'dialogue cannot be an instrument for the discovery of truth, because Revelation plays that role.' However religious dialogue does have two important functions: it allows 'for believers of various faiths to communicate and foster understanding; and to preach, spread, and advance the [Gospel].'" While it is certainly the case that Jesus Christ is himself the fullness of God's self-revelation (cf. "I am...the Truth," Jn 14:6), and that the Church is the sacrament (cf. Lumen Gentium n. 1) of Christ on earth, it is not the case that the Church can't gain or "learn" anything through inter-religious dialogue. In fact, Dominus Iesus, which is anything but "liberal" with respect to this issue, explicitly teaches that inter-religious dialogue "requires an attitude of understanding and a relationship of mutual knowledge and reciprocal enrichment, in obedience to the truth and with respect for freedom" (n. 2). At the very least, since we share a great deal with many of the great religious traditions (cf. Nostra Aetate throughout), dialogue with members of those traditions can direct us toward unattended and un(der)developed elements of our own Catholic Chrisitan tradition, and in this way, can lead us to a fuller and richer understanding of ourselves and of the God who is the source of truth. In this way, at the very least, inter-religious dialogue can have a function other than as a pretext for proselytizing members of other faiths.

By: bpeters1

bpeters1 — Mon, 11 Jun 2012 01:08:34 +0000

Randall: your refusal to "actually listen to and respect what other faiths have to say" since they are, allegedly, "empty," demonstrates a lack of charity which doesn't reflect the Church's current teaching on the matter. The Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue's "Dialogue and Proclamation" (1991, n. 29) states that "all men and women who are saved, share, though differently, in the same mystery of salvation in Jesus Christ through his Spirit. Christians know this through their faith, while others remain unaware that Jesus Christ is the source of their salvation. The mystery of salvation reaches out to them, in a way known to God, through the invisible action of the Spirit of Christ. Concretely, it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious tradition and by following the dictates of their conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God's invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Savior (cf. AG 3, 9, 11).” According to this document, other religious traditions hardly come across as "empty." Recall also that JPII taught that "The Spirit's presence and activity affect not only individuals but also society and history, peoples, cultures and religions" (Redemptoris Missio n. 28).

By: Randall

Randall — Sun, 10 Jun 2012 18:41:04 +0000

Agreed, Bruce. And if that is the only ultimate (positive) end, why not use it as a beginning point? If the answer is “yes,” it is no longer interfaith per se but the conversation now turns to conversion into the one True Church. If the answer is “maybe,” we have the opportunity to enlighten them why our faith is correct and theirs is inherently flawed. If the answer is “no,” then they are lost and time should not be wasted on “dialogue” as it will be pointless. Separate the wheat from the chaff. Moreover, I resent the use of the term “dialogue” as it means we should actually listen to and respect what those of other faiths have to say. Unless it is to correct them, I see no point in listening to empty words describing empty faiths.

By: Bruce

Bruce — Sun, 10 Jun 2012 17:42:45 +0000

Well, if we Catholics really believe we have the fullness of truth, interfaith dialogue will ultimate lead us to ask our interlocutors: “So, are you joining the true Church or not?”