The Catholic News Service (via Dwight Longenecker courtesy of our mid-western correspondent) explains how we are supposed to understand a Muslim prayer being offered in the Vatican:
When leaders of different religions come together and pray for a common cause, they are not only appealing to God, they also are showing the world they believe that followers of different religions are still brothers and sisters before the one who created them.
That is not the same as ignoring religious differences or pretending those differences do not matter.
“It should be evident to all who participate that these occasions are moments of being ‘together for prayer, but not prayer together,’” said guidelines for interreligious dialogue published in late May by the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue.“Being able to pray in common requires a shared understanding of who God is,” the document said. “Since religions differ in their understanding of God, ‘interreligious prayer’ — meaning the joining together in common prayer by followers of various religions — is to be avoided.”
The distinction between praying together and praying at the same time is one Vatican officials have found increasingly necessary to emphasize as popes have led more and more interfaith gatherings for peace.
That sounds about as clear as the distinction between praying to Mary and praying to God through Christ.
But John Paul II may have established the pattern in his catechism:
841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”
These are clearly Roman Catholic matters and I am not in a position (even if writing from Rome) to tell Roman Catholics how to interpret the Bible or their tradition. But I am befuddled, to put it mildly, that formerly conservative, strict-subscriptionist, inerrantist Presbyterians can switch sides and then tell us with a straight face that they have entered a communion that is more conservative than even the PCA.
BTW, I wonder if those team-switchers notice a resemblance between Called to Communion and this.
Old Life 
Why is it even necessary to come together for prayer if people are of different religions. Can’t everybody just pray in their own church, mosque, synagogue, whatever. If these leaders want to get together to talk about furthering a peaceful settlement to the Mideast problem, fine. But it is confusing at best for Rome to talk about salvation only through Christ and then put up this nonsense.
Looks like the “principled means for discerning truth from error” can’t figure out that Allah and Yahweh aren’t the same deity. So much for the Trinity.
The sad thing is that the world looks to Rome for an example of Christianity. But if you can’t even get the exclusivity of Christ right, what good are you as a Christian denomination? Might as well be a part of the mainline.
We’re told that we need an infallible church to avoid many problems. How many OPC, PCA, SBC, Missouri Synod, or even Assemblies of God churches are introducing such confusion?
LikeLike
Robert, to the extent that the Insider Movement is largely an eeeevangelical phenomenon, and to the extent that those denoms are relatively influenced by eeeevangelicalism, it could be that there is enough blame to go around. Still, the unique claim that an infallible church is the needed mechanism to settle doctrinal dispute only adds an ironic insult to injury.
http://www.reformation21.org/articles/is-the-insider-movement-really-that-bad.php
LikeLike
New name: Called to Communion with Muslims and, like, Practically Everyone Else — CtCM-PEE.
LikeLike
Do Catholics presuppose the mark is “conservative”? Rather, isn’t it “apostolicity,” defined in terms of Scripture and Tradition?
At any rate, what’s the difference between these goings on and, say, Jewish Christians in the synagogues in the late 30s AD? Or “Old Camel Knees” praying in the Temple as he was wont to do?
LikeLike
Nothing says (Roman) Catholicity quite like inclusivism.
Or maybe they are starting their own Abrahamic coalition?
LikeLike
It was a lot more effective when they told me my Protestant views were anathema and I was condemned to an eternity in hell outside of the Catholic Church.
LikeLike
Zrim,
But is the Insider Movement really that powerful within eeeevangelicalism? Do we have any “evangelical” Protestant denominations officially endorsing it? Honest questions.
LikeLike
Chris, oh, well, maybe two millenia, the Crusades, Jihad, the Schism of 1054 and the Reformation. Other than that, just keep moving along.
LikeLike
Robert, listening to Bill Nikides tell it, yes and sorta:
For years, the latest report from the mission field was that evangelical labor in Muslim countries was slow and arduous—that is, until the Insider meteor entered our atmosphere. As it stands today, Insider Movements occupy a great deal of the evangelical world’s missions resources, some of its brains, and sadly, for reasons I will introduce here, many of its dreams. It has become a go-to option for all sorts of traditional evangelicals working with ostensibly reputable missions organizations such as Navigators, Frontiers, Summer Institute of Linguistics (a branch of Wycliffe), Global Partners for Development, and the International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention.
http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var2=1370
LikeLike
Zrim,
Interesting. I guess the one point in our favor is that we don’t claim to be infallible. Kinda hard to excuse the pope… (not teaching ex cathedra, yada, yada).
LikeLike
Chris,
At any rate, what’s the difference between these goings on and, say, Jewish Christians in the synagogues in the late 30s AD? Or “Old Camel Knees” praying in the Temple as he was wont to do?
1. Redemptive historical transition period
2. The Jewish authorities had not yet defined itself against Christianity and anathematized it. Islam’s whole definition of itself depends on the repudiation of the deity of Christ.
LikeLike
Darryl, did you just troll-slap me?
None of your answers are compelling, except maybe the “two millennia” bit, which I’ll interpret for you as: neither of the situations I asked about above were forced moments of inter-religious practice, much like these Vatican practices two thousand years later. Early Christianity was a subset of Judaism, and thus early Christians would have naturally continued following the rhythms of life in the Holy Land; the same of course isn’t true for Islam, unless we want to say that Islam is a (heretical) sect of Christianity (iirc, Frame used to say that back at RTS). That’s a better answer, right? Certainly not as irrelevant as “two millenia, the Crusades, Jihad, the Schism of 1054 and the Reformation” is to the question. Maybe it is as simply as “Why is it even necessary?” as Robert asks above?
Unless, in keeping with the Catholic M.O., the Vatican plans to put up with a little syncretism in hopes that the gospel will ‘infect’ their pagan guts from the inside out.
LikeLike
Chris, perhaps you are surprised at DGH’s response b/c you drank a bit too deeply from Frame’s well (him not being known for his historical chops). I don’t know, just guessing, because your question is what historians would call “anachronistic.”
It might be an interesting question, but at the end of the day it is irrelevant because of, well, you know, two millennia and all that.
LikeLike
Chris, exactly, that gospel infection has worked so well with Mary as co-mediatrix.
Glad to know the kool aid is well stocked in your home.
LikeLike
I’m not saying I agree with it, Darryl. I’m just not finding it as offensive. Surely there’s room for the “that-doesn’t-bother-me-so-much” troll at your table?
LikeLike
“Fundamentally, Insiders are those who profess faith in Christ but remain members of their original religious communities; Muslims remain Muslims, Hindus remain Hindus, and Buddhists remain Buddhists.”
I wonder if my wife would buy this if I wanted to take on a mistress?
“No, really honey. I’m still faithful to you. I’m just faithful to her, too.”
(Frying pan hits head)
LikeLike
Chris – Unless, in keeping with the Catholic M.O., the Vatican plans to put up with a little syncretism in hopes that the gospel will ‘infect’ their pagan guts from the inside out.
Erik – Watch Werner Herzog’s film on Catholicism in Latin America sometime to see syncretism on display within Catholicism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK0UU2lBc34
LikeLike
Chris, don’t disagree with the pope? Isn’t that above your grace grade?
LikeLike
Darryl—full communion, yes; mere agreement, thank the Lord, no. I’ve happily kept moving along . . .
LikeLike
Erik—I’m intimately familiar with Catholic syncretism (not least of the Latin American variety), but not this short film. Thanks for the link.
LikeLike
Chris,
It’s interesting, just like everything else I’ve seen from Herzog. A brilliant madman. I need to see more.
LikeLike