Ecumenism

[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