Thursday, June 02, 2005
A SOLUTION TO THE DIFFICULTY PRESENTED BY “NO SALVATION” ?
Lee asks if pages 9-11 of False Dawn will address the problem that arises from conflicting encyclicals and the teachings of the Early Church Fathers.
The pages in question are part of “Author’s Introduction, with an Apologia”. In this section he offers various comments of skeptics and his response.
SKEPTIC: So what are you, some kind of fundamentalist?
He responds to this question by quoting the Creed of the ancient and undivided Church which is quite close to the Nicene Creed Roman Catholics repeat each Sunday. Then he expands on this further writing:
“I am a Christian, baptized and chrismated to serve Christ, who is my Lord and Savior. I am obliged to share the Faith with those who might be receptive to it—recognizing that my deeds provide a witness (for good or for ill) that is louder than any words that I utter.
All mankind was created by God, and all are held in existence by Him. Just as all the creation that there is, is by and through Christ, so also all salvation is by and through Christ. Nevertheless, I do not, and dare not, judge the salvation or spiritual state of non-Christians. God is loving, merciful, and just, and will do all things possible to bring all to Him.
He quotes passages from Lumen Gentium, and from Dignitatis Humanae to back this up.
He next addresses the skeptic’s question “Are you in favor of religious division, then?” with the response that there are two movements afoot today that are often lumped together but which must be separated. One is the ecumenical movement which seeks to reunite all Christians. The other is the interreligious movement which is tied to a quest for a New Spirituality that would unify the planet in a New World Order, which is a foe of traditional Christianity. He says that “followers of traditional religions who embrace the present-day interfaith movement will find themselves in the position of sheep who negotiate with wolves about the dinner menu.”
He goes on to refute the challenge that a Catholic believes in the use of force, bribery, or “holy deception” to advance the Christian cause.
Does this help?
Actually, no, it merely points to the problem. I agree with what Lee states in these pages. He cites two encyclicals to back up his statements. Both of them have come from Vatican II. Unfortunately these encyclicals do not agree with the previous encyclicals that I’ve quoted. That is precisely the problem.
Also the turn to Patristics reinforces the claims of the pre-Vatican II encyclicals, so turning to the very basics of the faith represented by the Creed of the undivided Church also points to those pre-Vatican II encyclicals by default.
There is something else in the book that doesn’t help. On p. 163-164 Lee writes of the support in the Catholic Church for the URI, specifically in San Francisco:
The Interfaith Center at the Presidio has been a URI Cooperation Circle (a local chapter) since 2000, and its director, Paul Chaffee, was on the URI Board until 2002.
On the evening of January 24, 2002, there was an “Interreligious Prayer Service” at the Catholic Cathedral of St. Mary of the Assumption in San Francisco. The service bulletin showed that there were eight URI leaders who offered public prayer or participated in the ceremonial lighting of candles for peace. The Catholic San Francisco coverage of the service began with a large front page photo of Bay Area religious leaders, with Levada standing next to Swing, as they obeyed a call from the Rev. Alan Jones, Canon of Grace Cathedral, to “reach out and tell each other, ‘you are beautiful, and may the spirit of peace fill your soul.”’
On that same day, the Pope led an interfaith prayer meeting at the shrine of St. Francis in Assisi; leaders of Christian churches and representatives from the major non-Christian religions gathered to pray for peace and to hear a message from the Pope. In an article about the 2002 Assisi interfaith gathering in the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano, Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, had said, “Christians and followers of other religions ‘cannot pray together’ because their prayers are an expression of a faith they do not share.” Accordingly, at Assisi all the Christians prayed together; the members of 11 other religions went to separate rooms for their own prayer services. This arrangement was done to avoid giving the appearance of religious syncretism.
By contrast, in San Francisco, the interfaith service involved side-by-side prayers and readings of holy books by members of many faiths. In his homily, Archbishop Levada said, “Who can be here tonight in prayer for peace, side by side, hearing the scriptures, the songs, and the prayers of our different traditions give voice to the deepest aspirations of our hearts, and not be moved to say, ‘Here is a soul-mate, a neighbor, a friend?”’
Now, of course, Archbishop Levada will be taking these sentiments to Rome where he will preside over doctrine.
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!
