(Vatican)
The "prayer for peace" in the Middle East, Israel's President Shimon
Peres and Palestinian President Abu Mazen invited to the Pope Francis in the
Vatican continues to provide irritations.
Pope
Francis insisted in his recent interview for La Vanguardia that it was not a
political mediation initiative, but a religious initiative that he
"spontaneously" during his visit had come to the Holy Land.
The
"Peace Prayer" with Rabbi and Imam in the Vatican Gardens has a
number of issues that await a response despite numerous opinions, papal
interviews and media reports. Even in Catholic media and press articles written
by Catholics, some of the confusion increased, rather than to provide clarity.
Reason for this is that church faithful Catholics who want the best, poke
around in this pontificate always helpless because they defend papal
initiatives, although they grope themselves over the papal intentions pretty
much in the dark and the Pope and the relevant Press Office of the Holy See no
value seem to put on it to clean up obscurities. It seems as if to let some
aspects intentionally unclear. This creates room for interpretation on the one
hand for those who want to avail such, but at least as much uncertainty among
those who the Catholic Church leader expect a clear leadership role. A
"simple, but thinking Catholic" of 30 years, summarized his questions
about the "Prayer for Peace," which he called "religious gesture
with political aims." Here are his questions:
Questions
about the Abrahamic "Prayer for Peace" by Pope Francis
1) The
gesture of Pope Francis series in a long "tradition" which. Many
"popes of modern times", by Alexander VI., Pius IX., Benedict XV.,
Pius XII was represented to the popes of the second half of the 20th century,
each set public initiatives to prevent armed conflicts and to keep the peace.
But when did any of these popes invited heads of state and the means of common
prayer used, which was addressed to three different gods?
2)
"Norma lists" reject the accusation that behind the prayer initiative
in the Vatican Gardens, the "spirit of Assisi" and of ecumenical
dialogue stand, because it is in this case a "political" and
therefore not religious in the strict sense of initiative acted. Pope Francis
emphasized, however, consistently the opposite. In addition, the prayer was the
main instrument of this meeting to the world public. But that prayer should
bear witness to the faith in the one true God. Prior to the world but
"testimony" for three different gods is filed, the strengthened of
Christianity, the Judaism and Islam, and thus the impression that all
"gods" and therefore all religions are equal. Absurd, purely
rhetorical question: If tomorrow will be achieved in the Middle East peace,
which God would then be thanked for it? The Triune God, Allah or Yahweh?The
question is absurd, because Jesus Christ has said: "I am the Way, the
Truth and the Life". Its common invocation together with other gods seems
that Christ's claim little reasonable and logical, which is why it would be
pretty strange if He would just hear such a polyphonic, but cacophonous-confused
prayer, because that would be, as He had said, "I am the Way, the Truth
and the Life, I am the only true God, but even if you should worship me with
false idols, I will hear your prayers, because I do not want to be petty, but
and stay open-minded me of such formalisms will . "But from Scripture we
know that God demands the exact opposite as the dance shows around the Golden
Calf. Therefore my question: Does the First Commandment valid or not? Is it
absolutely valid or allows exceptions when it comes to political issues or
peace between nations is at stake?
3) Probably
it is the religious gesture with protesters which regurgitates me. So noble and
important may be the political concerns, the question arises why the religious
means par excellence , the prayer is for this used to be such a bad way? Why in
such "bad" way? Can it be a matter of indifference, when the Vicar of
Christ on earth to prompt that is "every man to his God" pray? How
many Christians are still convinced of the necessity for salvation of the
Catholic Church? Reinforced such a gesture, especially since by the Pope, and
thus at the highest level, not the already widespread confusion among Catholics
and thus the priority sheep entrusted to him? The confusion in the doctrine
following the foot in the confusion of morality: How many are convinced today
to live as they please, because religion is the same religion, they are all
equivalent, when you need them at all? Was diluted in the Vatican Gardens and
papal Director not the faith? Was on June 8 at the Vatican and the Pope did not
(one more time) dethroned Christ the King?Which political goal and it may even
be as high standing, may take precedence over the highest good of salvation?
4)
Therefore arises in depth the question of the validity of the first
commandment. If you want to make us really believe against the whole tradition
of the Church, that the non-Christians raise effective prayers to God? The fact
that European Christians [here is no mention of the Christians in the
Arab-Islamic world] can call the Holy Trinity, by saying Allah?What sense then
have the sacrament of baptism and the evangelizing mission to the Christians?
What is the point then ultimately may also collect the death of Our Lord on the
cross, even though the Muslims an "authentic, true prayer" to God, as
was alleged in Catholic media in connection with the "Prayer for
Peace"?
5) To
justify the historically unprecedented prayer initiative was more or less
suggested by reference to Christianity as a "religion of love" that
Christians can make to the prayers of non-Christians to own. This syncretic
dangers were simply hidden. The response of a Catholic who wants to remain
Catholic, can only be: No, non possumus. If we do not want to pay homage to the
religious relativism under sugarcoated sign, we have to say a resounding no.
This is a disturbing question arises, disturbing, because it must be addressed
to the highest church authorities: no one raises the question of the identity
of God? God is the only one eternal, immutable, but it seems he to be treated
by us as an arbitrarily modeled plasticine. When I pray to Allah, then I do not
pray for the living and true God, but an idol. One thing is the peaceful
relations between believers of different religions, but an entirely different
thing is the equation of all religions. Is it possible that you have to call
such elementary things ecclesiastical hierarchs and cultural Catholic elite in
memory, which also includes the Catholic journalists and writers belong? That
the meeting at the Vatican took place on Pentecost Sunday and the reporting and
justifications were thus in the octave of Pentecost to Trinity Sunday, has
nothing "prophetic", but something grotesque in itself. This leaves
finally only the question: Why does the prayer initiative of the Pope was
performed in the Vatican Gardens? Because there was an awareness in the Vatican
that a common prayer in the church is unthinkable? Why, then, under the open
sky? Or it was moved into the garden, because they wanted to expect no Christian
symbols Jews and Muslims? I will start by saying that I neither the one nor the
other variant built because their adheres the unexplained, irritating fact of
syncretism was suspected.
6) So in
conclusion remains only the most oppressive of all questions: What was intended
Pope Francis with the "Abrahamic" alliance, which exposes him to the
suspicion of syncretism and the creation of a world religion? Why did not he
left it at a political mediation initiative, as did his predecessors, especially
since the target is indeed superficial political in nature, as the Pope himself
emphasized?
No comments:
Post a Comment