Rorate Caeli


Sandro Magister has drawn attention to the L'Osservatore Romano's publication on Friday of an eviscerated Italian version of the summary of the speech of Bishop Raboula Antoine Beylouni during the Special Assembly for the Middle East of the Synod of Bishops. (Rorate reproduced that speech two days ago.) According to Magister this speech's published form was heavily censored on the order of the Vatican Secretariat of State.

Below is the full text of the speech in English, with the equivalent portions removed by the Secretariat of State in bold:

For several years in Lebanon we have had a national committee for Islamic-Christian dialogue. There was also an episcopal commission from the Assembly of Catholic Patriarchs and Bishops of Lebanon entrusted with Islamic-Christian dialogue. It was recently suppressed to give more importance to the other committee, also because because it had not produced any results.

Sometimes dialogue occurs here and there, in the Arab countries, such as in Qatar, where the Emir himself invites, at his expense, personalities from different countries and from the three religions: Christian, Muslim and Jewish. In Lebanon the Télélumiere and Noursat networks, and other television networks, sometimes broadcast programs on Islamic-Christian dialogue. Often a topic is chosen, and each side explains or interprets according to their religion. These programs are usually very instructive.

With my intervention, I wished to draw attention on the points that make these encounters difficult and often ineffective. It should be clear that we are not discussing dogma. But even the subjects of a practical and social order are difficult to discuss when the Koran or the Sunna discusses them.
Here are some difficulties which we have faced:

- The Koran inculcates in the Muslim pride in being the only true and complete religion, taught by the greatest prophet, because he was the last one. The Muslim is part of the privileged nation, and speaks the language of God, the language of Paradise, the Arabic language. This is why, he comes to dialogue with a sense of superiority, and with the certitude of being victorious.

The Koran, supposedly written by God Himself, from beginning to end, gives the same value to all that is written: dogma that supercedes all law or practice.

In the Koran, men and women are not equal, not even in marriage itself where the man takes several wives and can divorce at his pleasure; nor in the heritage where man takes double; nor in the testifying before judges where the voice of one man is equal to the voice of two women, etc...

The Koran allows the Muslim to hide the truth from the Christian, and to speak and act contrary to how he thinks and believes.

In the Koran, there are contradictory verses which annul others, which gives the Muslim the possibility of using one or the other to his advantage, and therefore he can tell the Christian that he is humble and pious and believes in God, just as he can treat him as impious, apostate and idolatrous.

The Koran gives the Muslim the right to judge Christians and to kill them for the Jihad (the holy war). It commands the imposition of religion through force, with the sword. The history of invasions bears witness to this. This is why the Muslims do not recognize religious freedom, for themselves or for others. And it isn’t surprising to see all the Arab countries and Muslims refusing the whole of the “Human Rights” instituted by the United Nations.

Faced with all these interdictions and other similar attitudes should one suppress dialogue? Of course not. But
the themes that can be discussed should be chosen carefully, and capable and well-trained Christians chosen as well, as well as those who are courageous and pious, wise and prudent... who tell the truth with clarity and conviction...

We sometimes deplore certain dialogues on TV, where the Christian speaker isn’t up to the task, and does not give the Christian religion all its beauty and spirituality, which scandalizes the viewers. Worse yet, when sometimes there are clergyman speakers who, in dialogue to win over Muslims call Mohammed the prophet and add the Muslim invocation, known and constantly repeated: “Salla lahou alayhi was sallam”. (In ordering this sentence to be censored, is the Vatican Secretariat of State implying that it is acceptable for Christian representatives to call Mohammed the prophet and to use the aforesaid invocation -- which invokes peace and blessings upon Mohammed? Just asking. CAP)

Finally I would like to suggest the following:

Like the Koran spoke well of the Virgin Mary, insisting on her perpetual virginity and miraculous and unique conception in giving us Christ; just as Muslims take her greatly into consideration and ask for her intercession, we should turn to her for all dialogue and all encounters with the Muslims. Being the Mother of us all, she will guide us in our relations with the Muslims to show them the true face of Her Son Jesus, the Redeemer of mankind.

If it pleased God that the Feast of the Annunciation was declared a national feast day in Lebanon for Christians and Muslims, may it also become a national feast day in other Arab countries.

(H/t: Messa in Latino)


Pablo said...

Freemasonry will never allow words like that to be spoken publicly.


Anonymous said...

All this shows that Muslims have retained elementary sanity.

Anonymous said...

These old yellow men in Rome are completely out of touch with reality and hold their torch in their ivory tower for "dialoge" etc. No wonder the church is in many places in short of a breakdown.

Pascendi said...

This is a far more serious issue than the liturgical ones on the adaption of the liturgy.
Defending the faith, catechesis etc. take first place over discussions on liturgical nuances.

Anonymous said...

Here is an interesting link to that which Vatican II actually declared in regard to Islam.

In regard to Islam, the following Web site argues (with numerous citations from Church documents) that Vatican II has taught in the negative:

Anonymous said...

The Roman liturgy (not newchurch 'liturgy') is the foremost line of defence of the Faith, and the absolute bulwark of true catechesis. The destruction of the Roman liturgy could hardly be considered mere nuance.

J.G. Ratkaj said...

Interestingly the conciliar papacy wanted to distance itself from any form of alignement to temporal rule but strenghted this only highly political Segretario di Stato while dismantling the Holy Office. Politics not true fidelity to the catholic religion stand behind this scandalous censure.

beng said...

- The Koran inculcates in the Muslim pride in being the only true and complete religion, taught by the greatest prophet, because he was the last one. The Muslim is part of the privileged nation, and speaks the language of God, the language of Paradise, the Arabic language. This is why, he comes to dialogue with a sense of superiority, and with the certitude of being victorious.

The Koran, supposedly written by God Himself, from beginning to end, gives the same value to all that is written: dogma that supercedes all law or practice.

Hey, what's wrong with this?

Catholic is the true and complete religion, taught by God Himself. Catholic is in superior status than other because we have the regenerative sanctifying grace through sacraments (although this great gift is, well, a gift, a grace that we do not earn so the pride we have is somewhat different than the pride of an athlete).

In dialog with other religion there's nothing wrong with Catholic to feel very superior because it has the fullness of truth.

The Bible also supersedes all other laws and practices.

So, the question is, is Bishop Raboula Antoine Beylouni suggesting that we do not share what muslim think of themselves and their religion on the point quoted above?

Pascendi said...

Anonymous 22:30. The Holy father begs to differ and has spoken authoritatively on the liturgy. True catechesis teaches that there is no "newchurch", nor "newchurch" liturgy.

Presently, in the Latin church, there is an ordinary and extra-ordinary rite in usage. This is the Roman Liturgy.

LeonG said...

"also because because it had not produced any results."

This is probably the principal reason in fact. the post-conciliar paradigm is a reductionist and relativist self-view. This is why the approach fails lamentably. It is based on a false perspective of charity putting man first, primacy of conscience second and divine mandate to preach The Gospel to all nations in the name of the Blessed Trinity third. This method is fed by the anthropocentric NO liturgy with which it paradigmatically aligns itself. This is another reason why the consequent outcome is counter-productive affirming falsehoods at the expense of the truth in the name of "dialogue".

LeonG said...

You are correct to make that assumption Anonymous Said. We have a new church liturgy (now 51 years old) in a new catholic church based on new liberal modernist philosophies. The NO liturgical rite is so different to The Traditional Latin Mass in almost every respect that even children and non-catholics can see they are not the same form nor are they the same rite. They embody two opposing views of catholic spirituality. The effects of both are totally different too. They are observable and quantifiable. Just look at what NO catholics believe to day, measured by church surveys, & how they have abandoned regular attendance at it. It is readily abusable as a liturgical form and is routinely invalidated or beset with illicit behaviours because it is anthropocentric, protestantised by design and it is always capable of change to suit the ephemeral whims of the moment.

Anonymous said...

They're probably afraid this will lead to the same kind of reaction that happened after the Regensburg address. Human weakness in the face of such threats is understandable and any human weakened by sin can and should have compassion for those who have such fear. Of course, it is also lamentable. A reignition of the flame of charity is what we need to pray for. When charity grows cold, it no longer casts out fear.

LeonG said...

Is anonymous Said a middle eastern name?

John said...

On the other hand. . . he is a middle eastern bishop. He swims in an Islamic sea. Editing his remarks regarding our separated brethren in the Religion of Peace may have saved his life.

Prof. Basto said...

Is it correct and proper that a Synod Father have his speech censored, no matter what the content of the speech? I mean, it was pronounced in the very Synod hall, during a working session of the Synod!

So, how can this censure take place? Can the Secretary of State appropriate for himself the authority to censure members of the Synod or does he need the green light of the Supreme Authority of the Church for such a thing?