Author Topic: Words of the Pope (Read 1433 times)

Marlelar · « **on:** December 21, 2012, 11:02:18 AM »

Quote

Two rules are generally regarded nowadays as fundamental for interreligious dialogue:
1. Dialogue does not aim at conversion, but at understanding. In this respect it differs from evangelization, from mission;2. Accordingly, both parties to the dialogue remain consciously within their identity, which the dialogue does not place in question either for themselves or for the other.

taken from: Vatican News

Why do I never cease to be amazed at the errors of B16???

Marsha

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #1 on:** December 21, 2012, 11:23:56 AM »

So, in reality, dialogue and deception are synonyms according to New Church.

Stubborn · « **Reply #2 on:** December 21, 2012, 11:44:46 AM »

Quote from: Marlelar

Quote
Two rules are generally regarded nowadays as fundamental for interreligious dialogue:
1. Dialogue does not aim at conversion, but at understanding. In this respect it differs from evangelization, from mission;2. Accordingly, both parties to the dialogue remain consciously within their identity, which the dialogue does not place in question either for themselves or for the other.

taken from: Vatican News

:stare:

Anthony Benedict · « **Reply #3 on:** December 23, 2012, 02:07:16 PM »

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

So, in reality, dialogue and deception are synonyms according to New Church.

Not precisely. "Dialogue" objectively taken and as defined by Merriam Webster refers to (a.) a composition in which two or more characters are represented as conversing; (b) a conversation between two or more people; (c) and exchange of ideas or opinions...

Obviously, "dialogue" is a precondition for any eventual evangelization. Folks do have to at least acknowledge the existence of something before proceeding to debate its merits, logic, imperatives, etc.

Even before Vatican II, the hierarchs and clerics had to "dialogue" with converts to ascertain their sincerity as much as to obtain their consent.

So, objectively speaking, this was not a misuse of the term by the Pope.

Marlelar · « **Reply #4 on:** December 24, 2012, 11:07:05 AM »

Quote from: Anthony Benedict

Quote from: Capt McQuigg
So, in reality, dialogue and deception are synonyms according to New Church.

Not precisely. "Dialogue" objectively taken and as defined by Merriam Webster refers to (a.) a composition in which two or more characters are represented as conversing; (b) a conversation between two or more people; (c) and exchange of ideas or opinions...

Obviously, "dialogue" is a precondition for any eventual evangelization. Folks do have to at least acknowledge the existence of something before proceeding to debate its merits, logic, imperatives, etc.

Even before Vatican II, the hierarchs and clerics had to "dialogue" with converts to ascertain their sincerity as much as to obtain their consent.

So, objectively speaking, this was not a misuse of the term by the Pope.

Except that the Pope specifically said: "Dialogue does NOT aim at conversion...". Apparently he has no intention of ever trying to convert anyone, he just wants to "understand" them.

Marsha

Telesphorus · « **Reply #5 on:** December 24, 2012, 12:12:16 PM »

Quote from: Marlelar

Except that the Pope specifically said: "Dialogue does NOT aim at conversion...". Apparently he has no intention of ever trying to convert anyone, he just wants to "understand" them.

Marsha

And it should go without saying, if one believes his position is true, that discussion would necessarily be oriented to convincing the other side of the truth of one's position. That is to say, someone who actually holds the Catholic Faith would necessarily be interested in converting others to it.

To have no interest in converting others to the Faith, is to not hold the Faith.

To assert no effort needs to be made to convert Jєωs (or anyone else) is to abandon the Faith.

Laval · « **Reply #6 on:** December 25, 2012, 12:47:43 AM »

It is true that in order to properly evangelise, it is helpful to have some understanding of the subject who is being evangelised. E.g.: How apologetics is done with a Protestant will be different to how it is done with a Buddhist. Dialogue can help establish this understanding.

It is not strictly an error to assert that dialogue does not have the aim of conversion, provided one means the aim is not immediate (or proximate). Ultimately, since dialogue is subordinate to the higher end of evangelisation, it must be geared towards that eventual end. It must never be dialogue for the sake of being nice.

Needless to say, such a quotation by itself is unhelpful and dangerous (in the present crisis of Modernism and liberalism).

Anthony Benedict · « **Reply #7 on:** December 25, 2012, 09:52:29 PM »

Thank you, Marsha, for the clarification.

I think Laval stirkes the right balance in approaching the issue.