interfaith Wedding - Hindu - Catholic - Questions about future Faith

[BrownCanuck]

Hello all,

I'm a hindu man and I am engaged to a Catholic woman. We are currently planning our wedding and have run into many, many roadblocks. The main one is, having a church wedding.

Some background:
We are both scientists and when we begun dating I had asked her a very simple questions, "do you believe in Catholicism?" Her response was, "I'm not very catholic, I goto church sometimes to think, I don't really know what to believe, I'm also not confirmed..." (almost a complete quote).

I took this as, well she believes in god and tenants of the christian faith but not all of what the church states as law, which is similar to me (I believe in god, but have a hard time believing in rituals (or dogma)). From my perspective, the tenants are very similar, it is the practice that differs.

We have been together for 3 years now, and got engaged last year... we have also been living together for 1.5 years. Prior to engagement, we had discussed infant baptism. I am against it, while she was for it. In the end, she said it would be okay to not baptize the children. It was after this that we decided to get married.

Originally she said she must get married in the church (in addition to a separate Hindu ceremony) to fulfill her marriage sacrament. I was okay with this, although my family was not. Needless to say, I had a lot of fights with my parents and siblings regarding the church ceremony to defend my fiance's desire (need) to have a church ceremony.

After taking the preparation wedding classes, we were told the in church wedding was not a sacrament since I was not christian. From what the instructor had said (and what I later confirmed with her priest) was that the wedding was "good in the eyes of the church, but not a sacrament." Due to this (and my family) I am having a hard time justifying a church wedding... which I know she REALLY wants.

As an aside on this topic, her and her family were not comfortable with most of the hindu ceremony. So we (my parents and I) modified the ceremony to the point that it was symbolic only...

It got to the point where so many traditions were modified that my parents stated (and I support) that we should have 1 non-denominational ceremony to finalize the marriage. There point was, we live together, don't really follow either tradition, so why are we fighting over this.

Recently tragedy has struck her family (her mother had passed away). The burial ceremony was held on the day of our planned engagement party. Since then, my fiance has become more of a practising Catholic. She now wants to be confirmed... she has stated that no infant baptism will take place when we have kids.

I want to support her, but I have read many of the tenants (laws, rules, obligations) of the church. I know that it is a catholics duty to do what is in their power to raise their kids Catholic... With respect to kids, it is still not an issue, but I worry that it will be when we do have children, even though she doesn't feel like any issue will arise.

I also feel, that if she does desire to practice her faith (fully), then I will be taking away from her by not baptizing our kids... and not fully supporting her (by going to church with her).

Any thoughts or advise? I'm truely at a loss...

BrownCanuck

[Fr_Bart_SVD]

Hello BrownCanuck,

Some short clarifications.

- In case of interfaith wedding it she has to get a special dispensation from the local bishop.

- the ceremony itself if that is the problem can be done in a different place than a church - of course a Catholic would probably feel uncomfortable with that - anyway for this a special permission from the local bishop is required as well.

- there is a confusion of this ceremony: is it a sacrament?.

The answer is: for her it will be a sacrament with all effects as she would be married with a Catholic

My greatest doubt is here:

You said:

she has stated that no infant baptism will take place when we have kids.

So a long as she keeps the idea of not baptising infants and bringing them up in the Catholic faith she cannot answer "yes" to that question during ceremony:

Will you accept children lovingly from God and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?

Also in order to get the dispensation to have a Church wedding for her, you probably have to sign an official document that you accept the fact your children will be bringing up in the Catholic faith.

Best regards,

Fr Bartholomew, SVD (Divine Word Missionary)

[lizaanne]

Be extremely careful. She may not be very Catholic right now, but there sounds like a very real possibility that she is being led back to her faith. You need to consider if you could be married to her if she was a full blown devout practicing Catholic, because that could very well happen. This woman deserves (as you do) to be able to share with the one she will spend the rest of her life with, the most deepest and personal aspect of our lives -- our Faith.

I spent 11 years in an invalid "marriage" with a man who did not really care about his faith. I was not religious when we had our wedding (I was not baptized), but became a very convicted Catholic in my 30s. I felt horribly cheated that I could not share my faith with him because he did not find it all that important.

Flash forward - I am now in a wonderful sacramental marriage with a man who would die for the Church. We share our faith in a way I only dreamed of before. I cannot even begin to tell you how important that sacramental grace is to a marriage, and personally, to one's own spiritual life and growth.

So - think long and hard. Never EVER think you can change anyone, or that they won't change from how they are today. Anything is possible.

~Liza

[BrownCanuck]

Originally Posted by lizaanne

Be extremely careful. She may not be very Catholic right now, but there sounds like a very real possibility that she is being led back to her faith. You need to consider if you could be married to her if she was a full blown devout practicing Catholic, because that could very well happen. This woman deserves (as you do) to be able to share with the one she will spend the rest of her life with, the most deepest and personal aspect of our lives -- our Faith.

I spent 11 years in an invalid "marriage" with a man who did not really care about his faith. I was not religious when we had our wedding (I was not baptized), but became a very convicted Catholic in my 30s. I felt horribly cheated that I could not share my faith with him because he did not find it all that important.

Flash forward - I am now in a wonderful sacramental marriage with a man who would die for the Church. We share our faith in a way I only dreamed of before. I cannot even begin to tell you how important that sacramental grace is to a marriage, and personally, to one's own spiritual life and growth.

So - think long and hard. Never EVER think you can change anyone, or that they won't change from how they are today. Anything is possible.

~Liza

Thanks Liza,

Although our differences are okay now, it is the future I am concerned with. I am not interested in changing her, in fact I'm a believer that the concept of conversion for a love marriage is fundamentally flawed, if both parties are believers. How can one legitimately fall in love with someone, and them ask them to change their beliefs? As a (extremly simplified analogy), it is like finding the greatest suite/computer/thing/ in the world that is just perfect for you (asis) and then dying it a different colour, or changing it's fabric...

As for the future, anyone can change... there are many people who are brought up catholic, or hindu that find peace in their later lives in islam, taoism, or jainism... What I'm really trying to find is common ground and ways to compromise. Methods, avenues of communication, and to understand what it means to be a catholic. However, if the catholic belief (which I am trying to earnestly understand) has no room for compromise, unfortunately I don't see how we can stay together happily.

BrownCanuck

[JharekCarnelian]

Originally Posted by Fr_Bart_SVD

Hello BrownCanuck,

Some short clarifications.

- In case of interfaith wedding it she has to get a special dispensation from the local bishop.

- the ceremony itself if that is the problem can be done in a different place than a church - of course a Catholic would probably feel uncomfortable with that - anyway for this a special permission from the local bishop is required as well.

- there is a confusion of this ceremony: is it a sacrament?.

The answer is: for her it will be a sacrament with all effects as she would be married with a Catholic

My greatest doubt is here:

You said:



So a long as she keeps the idea of not baptising infants and bringing them up in the Catholic faith she cannot answer "yes" to that question during ceremony:



Also in order to get the dispensation to have a Church wedding for her, you probably have to sign an official document that you accept the fact your children will be bringing up in the Catholic faith.

Best regards,

Fr Bartholomew, SVD (Divine Word Missionary)

Dia Duit Father,

If I could add to this, my own marriage is to a member of one of the Orthodox Churches and that involved considerable discussion and forethought. For our OP he should bear in mind that the gap between Catholicism and Orthodoxy is nowhere as severe as that between Catholicism and Hinduism. At the moment the female party in the OP's question seems confused and also seems to be grieving for a parent Also the argument from her part that there are not likely to problems should children arrive later is something I view skeptically judging by how many problems you both have already encountered.

Also I would see the view that there is not a great gap between the tenets of Hinduism and Catholicism is ultimately flawed. There is indeed much of worth in various schools of Hinduism but it would be false ecumenism to pretend that they and Catholicism are ultimately reconcilable at all levels. Should the OP's proposed spouse decided to embrace her faith more fully I can see this becoming a sticking point.

This marriage could work but it would require a great deal of work and I can see pressures both internal and external in the OP's decription which set up significant challenges for such a marriage.

[BrownCanuck]

Originally Posted by JharekCarnelian

Dia Duit Father,

Also I would see the view that there is not a great gap between the tenets of Hinduism and Catholicism is ultimately flawed. There is indeed much of worth in various schools of Hinduism but it would be false ecumenism to pretend that they and Catholicism are ultimately reconcilable at all levels. Should the OP's proposed spouse decided to embrace her faith more fully I can see this becoming a sticking point.

This marriage could work but it would require a great deal of work and I can see pressures both internal and external in the OP's decription which set up significant challenges for such a marriage.

What I meant was, if you take away obligatory mass, Advent, Lent, and Easter from catholism... and holy monday, diwali, holi, and the other religous days and festivities from Hinduism and strictly focus on how we treat each other, our neighbours, coworkers and the person we don't even know, with proper kindness and love, perform charitable acts, and give back to the general community... these tenants are common in both religions (well I know it is important in Hinduism...).

I know, the first response will be.. if you take away these facets of Catholism, you aren't really left with catholism (and similarly for Hinduism). But please remember, neither of us *were* practising for the majority of our relationship... and we are both scientist (our discussion on scientific principle, evolution, and cancerous mutations were the topics that brought is together in the first place).

BrownMan

[BrownCanuck]

Originally Posted by Fr_Bart_SVD

Hello BrownCanuck,

Some short clarifications.

- In case of interfaith wedding it she has to get a special dispensation from the local bishop.

- the ceremony itself if that is the problem can be done in a different place than a church - of course a Catholic would probably feel uncomfortable with that - anyway for this a special permission from the local bishop is required as well.

- there is a confusion of this ceremony: is it a sacrament?.

The answer is: for her it will be a sacrament with all effects as she would be married with a Catholic

My greatest doubt is here:

You said:



So a long as she keeps the idea of not baptising infants and bringing them up in the Catholic faith she cannot answer "yes" to that question during ceremony:



Also in order to get the dispensation to have a Church wedding for her, you probably have to sign an official document that you accept the fact your children will be bringing up in the Catholic faith.

Best regards,

Fr Bartholomew, SVD (Divine Word Missionary)

Thank you Fr Bartholomew for your response. This was what I thought prior to proposing (after internet searches and speaking with other Catholics), that she would have to state she would bring her kids up catholic and I would have to sign some sort of document signifying that I was okay with that, and would not interfere. Since we had no intention of raising our kids Catholic (mainly the baptism), I told her I wouldn't be okay with that. Simply put, I don't want to lie to my future wife, in front of both our families DURING our wedding... just felt like we would be starting off on the wrong foot. We then proceeded to speak with her priest, he assured us that the line "Will you accept children lovingly from God and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church? would have the later part regarding raising them in the law of Christ omitted from the ceremony for both of us.

Again, regarding the sacrament of marriage. Her priest had stated it was not a scaramental marriage for her, since she was marrying a non believer. However, it would become a sacrament for her if I were to convert (a very unlikely scenario).

As for the special dispensation, her church has been contacted and the paper work submitted with our responses to each question. I guess we will find out the answer soon enough.

With respect to a marriage outside the church, her priest has told me that their diocese does not permit weddings outside of the church.

Is it possible that the differences in what you are saying, and what the their priest states is based on dioces policy rather than canon law? I also ask this, since her cousin in law is jain and is also a god parent to her nephew (i thought all god parents must be confirmed....).

Thanks Again,

Brown Canuck

[Fr_Bart_SVD]

Hello BrownCanuck,

I'll try to clarify some things in the following quotations:

Originally Posted by BrownCanuck

that she would have to state she would bring her kids up catholic and I would have to sign some sort of document signifying that I was okay with that, and would not interfere. Since we had no intention of raising our kids Catholic (mainly the baptism), I told her I wouldn't be okay with that. Simply put, I don't want to lie to my future wife, in front of both our families DURING our wedding... just felt like we would be starting off on the wrong foot.

Yes I'd say your behaviour is perfectly correct.
What's the point to have a 'church marriage' if one doesn't accept the Church's vision of marriage?

Originally Posted by BrownCanuck

We then proceeded to speak with her priest, he assured us that the line "Will you accept children lovingly from God and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church? would have the later part regarding raising them in the law of Christ omitted from the ceremony for both of us.

That sounds to me like a kind of cheat (what priest said).

It is possible to omit that question but I would not say in that circumstances.
It is lawfully to do i.e. in the context of marriage between an elderly couple. Otherwise that quesion base on internal knowledge of the priest and you gonna have a public marriage and it is a contradiction.

Anyway, Canon law says (about mixed marriages - that is your case):

Can. 1125 The local ordinary can grant a permission of this kind if there is a just and reasonable cause. He is not to grant it unless the following conditions have been fulfilled:

1/ the Catholic party is to declare that he or she is prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith and is to make a sincere promise to do all in his or her power so that all offspring are baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church;

2/ the other party is to be informed at an appropriate time about the promises which the Catholic party is to make, in such a way that it is certain that he or she is truly aware of the promise and obligation of the Catholic party;

3/ both parties are to be instructed about the purposes and essential properties of marriage which neither of the contracting parties is to exclude.

I underlined this place where your(her) situation is described.

Originally Posted by BrownCanuck

Again, regarding the sacrament of marriage. Her priest had stated it was not a scaramental marriage for her, since she was marrying a non believer. However, it would become a sacrament for her if I were to convert (a very unlikely scenario).
As for the special dispensation, her church has been contacted and the paper work submitted with our responses to each question. I guess we will find out the answer soon enough.

Oh, that's right but - even though it is not a sacramental marriage in the full sense - for her it takes all effects of it:

- she will be bound by it as long as you live
- in the Church her status will be the same as sacramental married woman, this will be her way to hollies etc.
Also everything what is required for the sacramental marriage will apply to your marriage including whole Catholic morality (including birth control and all spousal obligations)

Originally Posted by BrownCanuck

With respect to a marriage outside the church, her priest has told me that their diocese does not permit weddings outside of the church.

Is it possible that the differences in what you are saying, and what the their priest states is based on dioces policy rather than canon law? I also ask this, since her cousin in law is jain and is also a god parent to her nephew (i thought all god parents must be confirmed....).

That's simply diocesan policy - the bishop has a right to establish this kind of rule.

Canon law says:

Can. 1118 §3.

A marriage between a Catholic party and a non-baptized party can be celebrated in a church or in another suitable place.

I'm not sure if the idea of having two different ceremonies is still at consideration, but that would be an argument for the local bishop to refuse his dispensation in this case as
Canon law 1127 §3 states:

. It is forbidden to have another religious celebration of the same marriage to give or renew matrimonial consent before or after the canonical celebration according to the norm of §1. Likewise, there is not to be a religious celebration in which the Catholic who is assisting and a non-Catholic minister together, using their own rites, ask for the consent of the parties.

This probably could sound strange but the reason for this is quite simple.

The Church (so it means faithful Catholics as well) does not believe as Sufjon says that all spiritual ways to God are the same and Catholic faith is like one of them.

But this is also I think the core of your doubt:

Is it possible to be in full communion between yourselves and your religions?

Religion is not something external to our being - rather opposite it is so internal and sets everything in our live and behaviour.

Best regards,

Fr Bart

[CopticChristian]

Originally Posted by BrownCanuck

Hello all,

I'm a hindu man and I am engaged to a Catholic woman. We are currently planning our wedding and have run into many, many roadblocks. The main one is, having a church wedding.

Some background:
We are both scientists and when we begun dating I had asked her a very simple questions, "do you believe in Catholicism?" Her response was, "I'm not very catholic, I goto church sometimes to think, I don't really know what to believe, I'm also not confirmed..." (almost a complete quote).

I took this as, well she believes in god and tenants of the christian faith but not all of what the church states as law, which is similar to me (I believe in god, but have a hard time believing in rituals (or dogma)). From my perspective, the tenants are very similar, it is the practice that differs.

We have been together for 3 years now, and got engaged last year... we have also been living together for 1.5 years. Prior to engagement, we had discussed infant baptism. I am against it, while she was for it. In the end, she said it would be okay to not baptize the children. It was after this that we decided to get married.

Originally she said she must get married in the church (in addition to a separate Hindu ceremony) to fulfill her marriage sacrament. I was okay with this, although my family was not. Needless to say, I had a lot of fights with my parents and siblings regarding the church ceremony to defend my fiance's desire (need) to have a church ceremony.

After taking the preparation wedding classes, we were told the in church wedding was not a sacrament since I was not christian. From what the instructor had said (and what I later confirmed with her priest) was that the wedding was "good in the eyes of the church, but not a sacrament." Due to this (and my family) I am having a hard time justifying a church wedding... which I know she REALLY wants.

As an aside on this topic, her and her family were not comfortable with most of the hindu ceremony. So we (my parents and I) modified the ceremony to the point that it was symbolic only...

It got to the point where so many traditions were modified that my parents stated (and I support) that we should have 1 non-denominational ceremony to finalize the marriage. There point was, we live together, don't really follow either tradition, so why are we fighting over this.

Recently tragedy has struck her family (her mother had passed away). The burial ceremony was held on the day of our planned engagement party. Since then, my fiance has become more of a practising Catholic. She now wants to be confirmed... she has stated that no infant baptism will take place when we have kids.

I want to support her, but I have read many of the tenants (laws, rules, obligations) of the church. I know that it is a catholics duty to do what is in their power to raise their kids Catholic... With respect to kids, it is still not an issue, but I worry that it will be when we do have children, even though she doesn't feel like any issue will arise.

I also feel, that if she does desire to practice her faith (fully), then I will be taking away from her by not baptizing our kids... and not fully supporting her (by going to church with her).

Any thoughts or advise? I'm truely at a loss...

BrownCanuck

This is confusing. You are Hindu. She is sort of Catholic> You took some classes and realize that it is not considered a sacramental marriage.

Infant Baptism was to be done and you opposed this when she was quasi-Catholic. She has become strong in her faith and opposes infant Baptism and you are for it.

You have decided to use a non-denominational ceremony or church.

So you are Hindu, your fiancee is Catholic and you want to use a Protestant service because of your confusion and want to baptize the babies that she now opposes as she is stronger in her faith. This is a tough one.

[Rhuarc]

Now I am not against this mans relationship but I must ask. Why do people marry outside of the faith? These issues would never come up if this if both spouses were Catholic. I know for me I would never dream of marrying anyone outside the faith. It would not be right for the children to have to choose which parents religion to follow.

[Eric Hilbert]

Thread pruned and started completely over.
I expect posters to:
1. RESPECT if not agree with the faith you are conversing about.
2.RESPECT if not agree with the poster you are speaking to.

On Easter Sunday too.

[thomasf]

To the OP, my advice to you would be to slow down. With the death of her mother, she is going to be experiencing faith questions that are going to affect her and possibly lead her back to her faith. Even if it doesn't happen immediately. And if that happens the dynamics of your relationship are going to change. No matter what she has believed until now, and even if you are both scientists. The worst thing that can happen is for you to try to push forward with the wedding while she is in that state and have her with regrets after, leading to your breakup.

I am a revert to the church, and things happened in my life over a series of years that added up and led to me coming back to the church. The things that happened got me thinking, and my reversion wasn't immediate, but it did happen. I got married in that time, but thankfully it didn't prevent my complete reversion to the church or my ability to receive sacraments. It's better for her to deal with her faith issues now and settle things before you get married than after you're married and these issues might break you up.

The thing about catholics that have fallen away from the church is that the faith stays with them, even if they don't believe now, and God's voice is buried in their hearts. That's what happened with me. I never thought I'd be coming back to the church ever, but that voice was buried in my heart and it kept calling and calling to me. I have a bs in biology, worked in a lab for a while, thought I was a man of logic and reason not faith. When God gets ahold of your heart, none of that matters.

Slow down, let her sort things out.

[Roy5]

I spent a little time in India, and met with a Catholic bishop in Puna. At the time he said that Catholics were deliberately keeping a low profile in the area because Hindu nationalism seemed to be on the rise, and there were militants who were agitating against Christianity as a European, non-Indian import brought to India by imperialists. That was 15 or so years ago and I don't know the situation there today.

On the other hand, I've read that Hinduism does emphasize that there are many different paths to God - something I, too, believe. I have chosen the Christian path myself but that doesn't mean I have to be against other paths.

As for your wedding, the important thing is that the two of you must be deeply in love, because marriage brings with it many crises which will challenge that love. Love, of course, involves respect and admiration of one another.

Once you have established this, work it out between you so that you both are satisfied with the pre-nuptial understanding. Maybe write it down. As for the wedding ceremony, baptism, etc., that is the decision of the two of you. Make it and stick by it. Don't let families undercut your happiness. When the grandkids come they will be loved whether they are baptized or not.

You might look into the Unitarians. Perhaps you're aware of them. They are a church that serves many couples of mixed religions. I have attended when, for example, a passage from the Gospels is read, along with a passage, say, from the Vedas or the Upanishads. They teach and preach respect for all faiths. Ironically, they grew out of Puritanism - a backlash? - and seven of the first nine Puritan churches became Unitarian around 1800, including the old Pilgrim congregation in Plymouth, MA. Harvard University theological seminary has had a Unitarian flavor in past years, and perhaps still so today?

[Vouthon]

"...Greek philosophy is a clear image of truth, a divine gift to the Greeks. Before the advent of the Lord, philosophy helped the Greeks to attain righteousness, and it is now conducive to piety; it supplies a preparatory teaching for those who will later embrace the faith. God is the cause of all good things: some given primarily in the form of the Old and the New Testament; others are the consequence of philosophy. Perchance too philosophy was given to the Greeks primarily till the Lord should call the Greeks to serve him, Thus philosophy acted as a schoolmaster to the Greeks, preparing them for Christ, as the laws of the Jews prepared them for Christ. The way of truth is one. But into it, as into a perennial river, streams flow from all sides. We assert that philosophy, which is characterized by investigation into the form and nature of things, is the truth of which the Lord Himself said, “I am the truth.” Thus Greek preparatory culture, including philosophy itself, is shown to have come down from God to men...To the Word of God all the host of angels and heavenly powers is subject, revealing, as He does, His holy office, for Him who has put all things under Him. Wherefore, His are all men; some actually knowing Him, others not as yet: some as friends" (Christians), others as faithful servants" (Jews), others as simply servants (those of other religions). He is the Teacher, who instructs the enlightened Christian by mysteries, and the faithful labourer by cheerful hopes, and the hard of heart with His keen corrective discipline; so that His providence is particular, public, and universal ... He it is who gives to the Greeks their philosophy by His ministering Angels ... for He is the Saviour not of these or those, but of all ... His precepts, both the former and the latter, are drawn forth from one fount; those who were before the Law, not suffered to be without law, those who do not hear the Jewish philosophy, not surrendered to an unbridled course...Should it be said that the Greeks discovered philosophy by human wisdom, I reply, that I find the Scriptures declare all wisdom to be a divine gift...Thus philosophy, a thing of the highest utility, flourished in antiquity among the barbarians, shedding its light over the nations. And afterwards it came to Greece. First in its ranks were the prophets of the Egyptians; and the Chaldeans among the Assyrians; and the Druids among the Gauls; and the Sramanas among the Bactrians; and the philosophers of the Celts; and the Magi of the Persians, who foretold the Saviour's birth, and came into the land of Judaea guided by a star. The Indian gymnosophists are also in the number, and the other barbarian philosophers. And of these there are two classes, some of them called Sramanas, and others Brahmins..."

- Saint Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 - c. 220), Church father

[Vouthon]

St Clement of Alexandria, in the 2nd century CE, had high praise for Buddha:

"...Among the Indians are those philosophers who follow the precepts of Buddha, whom, on account of his extraordinary sanctity, they have raised to divine honours..."

— Saint Clement of Alexandria, Stromata (Miscellanies), Book I, Chapter XV

St Justin Martyr (103–165) lauded and reverenced the great Greek philosophers as genuine prophets:


"...We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists; as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus, and men like them..."

Of Plato Justin wrote:

"...Well done, Plato! Thou hast touched on the truth...Whence, O Plato, is that hint of the truth which thou givest?...let it not be this one man alone--Plato; but, O philosophy, hasten to produce many others also, who declare the only true God to be God, through His inspiration...For the knowledge of God, these utterances, written by those we have mentioned through the inspiration of God..."

Yes, Plato is described as being inspired by God. From his writings we learn also that Clement of Alexandria came to faith after a personal search for philosophical truth that had led him on a good many travels. Clement led the catechetical school and many believe his writings were used in the training. It is clear that Clement followed in the philosophical mindset of Philo. He quotes or alludes to Plato hundreds of times. For Clement, Plato was the Moses of the Greek world, revealing the truth of God through his philsophical insights.


As you can see the Church Fathers regarded the "prophets" and "holy figures" of religions outwith Christianity as being genuinly inspired by the Holy Spirit and not as "false prophets".


And so we find that the Fathers highly praised the prophets of a great number of religions and proclaimed them as being inspired, including:



- The philosophers of the Jain religion and the Bactrian Buddhists (Sramanas)

- The Buddha himself

- The great Greek philosophers Plato, Aristotle, Socrates and Heraclitus (among others)

- The prophets of the Egyptian faith

- The prophets of the Chaldean people

- The Druids of the Gaulic people

- The philosophers of the Celts

- The Magi of the Zoroastrian faith whom Clement says had genuine prophecies about the birth of Christ

- The Sages and Prophets and priests of the Hindu religion (Brahmins, Gymnosophists)


This is why Pope John Paul II once said, "You speak of many religions. Instead I will attempt to show the common fundamental element and the common root of these religions...From the beginning, Christian Revelation has viewed the spiritual history of man as including, in some way, all religions, thereby demonstrating the unity of humankind with regard to the eternal and ultimate destiny of man. The Church sees the promotion of this unity as one of its duties."

So yes the Church Fathers and the Bible paint a very different picture of reality from you my dear brother Kelcca.

The quotes that our dear brother Sufjon has provided us with from Blessed Pope John Paul II do not teach anything new. It is simply the perrenial Sacred Tradition passed down by the Fathers and present also in the Bible which John Paul II being the great mind that he was had a throrough understanding of.