Today, Dr. Art Shriberg gave a speaker introduction, and made a terrific joke that I will take liberty to share with you. He said that when he just started to work at Xavier University, he thought that SJ meant Slightly Jewish. What got to me is that he might be right. I know that SJ means Society of Jesus, but in a way we all are slightly Jewish, slightly Christian, slightly Muslim, slightly Buddhist. Probably some of the religious views that each of us has can be found in other religions. So are we all slightly interreligious? Then why is it so hard to engage in a dialogue, if most religions share the same values, teachings and have the same rights and wrongs?
For something of an answer we turn to an essay by Peter Kreeft on "the uniqueness of Christianity," coincidentally just re-released by the good folks at the Catholic Education Resource Center:
Ronald Knox once quipped that "the study of comparative religions is the best way to become comparatively religious."
The reason, as G. K. Chesterton says, is that, according to most "scholars" of comparative religion, "Christianity and Buddhism are very much alike, especially Buddhism."
But any Christian who does apologetics must think about comparative religions because the most popular of all objections against the claims of Christianity today comes from this field. The objection is not that Christianity is not true but that it is not the truth; not that it is a false religion but that it is only a religion. The world is a big place, the objector reasons; "different strokes for different folks". How insufferably narrow-minded to claim that Christianity is the one true religion! God just has to be more open-minded than that.
...
1. "All religions are the same, deep down."
That is simply factually untrue. No one ever makes this claim unless he is (1) abysmally ignorant of what the different religions of the world actually teach or (2) intellectually irresponsible in understanding these teachings in the vaguest and woolliest way or (3) morally irresponsible in being indifferent to them. The objector's implicit assumption is that the distinctive teachings of the world's religions are unimportant, that the essential business of religion is not truth but something else: transformation of consciousness or sharing and caring or culture and comfort or something of that sort — not conversion but conversation. Christianity teaches many things no other religion teaches, and some of them directly contradict those others. If Christianity isn't true, why be a Christian?
By Catholic standards, the religions of the world can be ranked by how much truth they teach.
- Catholicism is first, with Orthodoxy equal except for the one issue of papal authority.
- Then comes Protestantism and any "separated brethren" who keep the Christian essentials as found in Scripture.
- Third comes traditional Judaism, which worships the same God but not via Christ.
- Fourth is Islam, greatest of the theistic heresies.
- Fifth, Hinduism, a mystical pantheism;
- Sixth, Buddhism, a pantheism without a theos;
- Seventh, modern Judaism, Unitarianism, Confucianism, Modernism, and secular humanism, none of which have either mysticism or supernatural religion but only ethics;
- Eighth, idolarity; and
- Ninth, Satanism.
To collapse these nine levels is like thinking the earth is flat.
Posts
9 comments:
if alive today, he would have to add a layer after Protestantism. "Protestantism which doesn't keep the Christian essentials as found in Scripture." They would be much closer to the Seventh category.
It appears that I attributed the above quote incorrectly. I thought the quote was from G. K. Chesterton when in fact it appears to be from Peter Kreeft who is still alive.
To collapse these nine levels is like thinking the earth is flat.
Or like thinking there's no climate change crisis?
Or like thinking there's no climate change crisis?
'Mind if I play this game?
Or like thinking progressive Christians aren't eco-pagans.
I strongly disagree with Prof. Kreeft's placement of Islam at #4. It belongs, probably, between "idolatry" and "Satanism."
If by "greatest of the theistic heresies," he simply means "largest," then that is surely true. But what needs to be remembered is that Islam is not just another of the world's false religions, on par with Hinduism or Shinto. It represents a demonic revolt against Christianity, and is the only world religion that arose in direct contradiction of the Christian Faith.
There is more to the Catholic-Orthodox split than simply "Papal Authority." I can think of two, though I'm sure an Orthodox could name more:
1. Divorce and remarriage.
2. The filioque controversy (though this may have been resolved.)
3. The Orthodox position that the consecration of the unleavened Host is dubious, at best.
WAC
Will,
The first thing I thougth of was your point 2. when I read Kreeft's essay.
He's a stick-to-the-essentials guy, so perhaps he thought those disagreements were more easily resolvable.
Okay, guys. Help out an ignorant person and tell me what the filioque controversy is. Thanks.
Nerina
Help out an ignorant person and tell me what the filioque controversy is.
Whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (the view of the Orthodox churches) or the Father and the Son (the view of the Catholic Church.)
Post a Comment