Archive for the ‘Evangelization’ Category

OKHONDD BHAVART

January 19, 2009

*Fr.Ivo da Conceição SOUZA

(Povitr Atmeache Firgojent, Moddganv)

Prostavna:Bhavart nastona jivitak suvad na, sonvsar cholona. Amcherich ani mon’xancher bhavart dhorunk zai. Dusreancher bhavart dhorina, zalear jivit fudde vochona. Devacher bhavart dhorun amcho bhorvanso vaddta, mog vaddta.

1.1: Az bhavarta ani bhorvanxea xivai amcheamni jiyeunk zaina. Jivitachem vozonn chodd zalam, jiyeunk bhov kotthin-moskil zalam. Margai choddlea-vaddlea, vaitt vistarot veta, nirdukai vosta, fottingponn somazachea xiramni firot veta.

1.2: Aichea sonvsarant zaito dubhav ani ovisvas asa, zalear choddoch niraxa asa. Khub tornnattim aplo jiv-prann diunk sodhtat, kiteak jivit ovghodd zalam, tancheamni sosunk zaina. Novim kazaream vikh gheun aplo jiv kaddunk sodhtat, kiteak lognachem jivit tankam thoddeach disamni vo mhoineamni ovghodd-koddu lagta. Avoibapui nirxetat, kiteak bhurgeank ritrovis xikounk ani tankam vhoir kaddunk bhov kottin-moskil.

1.3: Konn amkam pavtolo? Konn amkam ghottai-buzvonn ditolo? Amam somestank sukh-sontos zai. Disan’dis ami tharav ghetat, sukhachea margar amim tankunk sodhtat. Ponn sobhar pavttim ami goir-somozant jiyetat ani chukichem panvl martat. Hea vellar amkam sukhachi vatt chukta. Konn amkam borea margar ghaltolo? Konn amchim dukham pustolo? Konn amkam buzvonn ditolo? Konn amkam bud’dh ditolo?

2.1: Jezu amkam subham’ponnim jivit diunk aila (Ju 10:10). To amkam uxir rosto, khursacho rosto dakhoita (polle Lk 14:27). To amkam bhavartacho rosto dakhoita. Bhavart taka mellona mhonn to dukhi zata (polle Mt 17:14-20): “Tumcho bhavarth unno, Hanv tumkam khorench sangtam: sansvachea konnea edo tumkam bhavarth asot, zalear hea dongrak tumi mhonntelet: ‘Hanga thavn thoim voch!’, ani to vetolo; ani tumchean korunk zaina, toslem kainch aschem na”, oxem Jezu tanche sovem udgarta (Mt 17:20). Xisamni kortutvam korunk tankam bhavartachi goroz. Heach bhavartan magnnem ani upas korunk zai. Jezucho zolm amkam novean ulo marta: Soddvonnarak bhavartan svikar korat! Povitr Misachi bhett mhollear Jezucho zolm. Disadispottim Jezuk amchea kallzant zolm dium-ia.

2.2: Povitr-sobhek sodanch addkholli asleot. Tichea ithiasant sodanch dumallo ani piddapidd melltat. Poilea chear xenkddeamni Romi Som’raj poilea Kristanvank piddapidd ditalet. Sodanch tika dusman gavlet. Aichea kallari sobhar desamni tika dumallo asa, Bharatant poreant Kristi iadnikank, mottvaxeank ani lokak piddapidd asa.

2.3: Amkam-i toxench ovghodd jivit mellta. Ponn amcho hetu mhollear sukh ani khorem-niz dadhosponn dita, toslem jivit vhorunk. Hea kallar amim Kristi govaiki diunk favo. Amchea rajkornnant amche Katolk rajkornnar asat, tamnni aplea bhavartak govaiki diunk favo. .

3.1: Amchea bhurgeank hem jivit bhavartan ani bhorvanxean tankunk adhar diunk favo. Tankam sovloti diunk zai, ponn allsayen jiyeunk diunk favona. Grestkayechi puja korum nozo (polle Lk 16:13). “Fast buck” korunk (kruttamni duddu punzaunk) tanchem mon zaunk favona. Ponn vavr korun aplem pott bhorunk tamnni teagancho ani koxttancho mog korunk favo.

3.2: Xallent amchea bhurgeamni mannsugi ani rit-rovis xikunk favo. Ekamekak adhar diunk, respet-man diunk, ekcharan jiyeunk tamnni xikunk zai. Pustokam vorvim jivitacho niz-khoro marog tamnni dhorunk zai.

3.3: Ghorant tankam avoibapaiamni bori dekh diunk zai. Avoibapui borea margar cholonant, zalear bhurgim-i sarkim aschim nanat.

Mon’xancho Zobab koslo zait? Bhavartachi goroz amkam hea jogant. Bhorvanso mhollear amcho jivitacho rosto. Devachea Utrak amim zap diunk zai, tacho uzvadd manun gheunk zai.

Sompadnni: Sorvxevttim, niraxi amim zaunk favona, ponn Jezun dhorla, toch rosto dhorun Bapache vengent ami pavum-ia…

Advertisements

GOD’S WORD—THEN AND NOW

January 19, 2009

*Dr.Ivo da Conceição Souza

Introduction:

The world is lying in darkness, groping for saviours. Can there be salvation from such a situation? Who will rescue us from this chaos? The same Word of God that at the beginning brought cosmos out of chaos. …

Creative Word:

The Word of God is spreading throughout the world. It has been there for millennia. It has a power of its own, because it has origin in the powerful, almighty God. This Word is a healing, liberating Word. In the academic realm and existential field it has been continually interpreted and re-interpreted. The academic-scientific interest for the biblical studies among the Catholics spread after Pius XII in his Encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu (DAS, September 30, 1943) voiced his official approval of the new, scientific approach to the Bible. This pontifical letter itself was the outgrowth of a long development, dating back to 1850, both outside and within the Catholic Church. 1 (cf.Jean LEVIE, The Word of God in Words of Men, Kennedy, New York, 1961).

The Pontiff canonized this scientifico-existential approach as a necessary way for the biblical scholarship to follow and urged Catholic students of the Bible to employ all the modern scientific means to deepen the teaching and spirituality of the ancient sacred authors (Denzinger 3831).

To read the Bible and interpret correctly the authors, we should know how to determine the sense, that is, to translate correctly their words, paying attention to phrase and sentence structure, context, peculiar style and usage.

It is not a simple task to read the Bible in spite of all romantic enthusiasm about it. It is a fallacy to say that because the Bible has been inspired for the sake of the community, everyone should be able to pick up the Bible and read it profitably. In our times, the charismatics use the Bible for their consolation and particular aims, but quite often misinterpret the biblical teachings. Often they justify this use by appealing to Jr 3l:34ab: “They no longer shall all teach one another, saying:Know the Lord, for they shall all know me from the least of them to the greatest’, whereby they argue that the charismatics can manage by themselves without the specific prophetic role of the clergy. “The priests, the pastors wanted to dominate us, we do not need them, we can praise the Lord and learn Bible without them“, exclaimed a good-looking lady in one of the charismatic meetings in New York. This lady would keep the audience in suspense for hours to come, but was not sure about the Catholic teaching herself and would go astray and mislead the “enthusiastic” participants.

We have to find out what the author meant to say, and therefore what God inspired. There is no substitute for educated effort. The inspired author wrote for the people of his times, in a different language and culture. To decipher what he meant, it requires training on our part. Because of the difference between the view of the biblical author and our own the modern reader has to be trained to understand the ancient mentality and the biblical expressions and symbolism. To discover the literal sense of the Bible, we must understand the whole background by studying auxiliary disciplines, such as geography, archaeology, textual criticism. The knowledge of the biblical languages, Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, would help the students of theology to have a thorough, almost professional knowledge of the Scriptures. These languages have been included as compulsory in most of the seminaries, so as to get the required biblical knowledge. Systematic theology includes a lot of biblical theology understood as the exegesis and synthesis of selected biblical texts.

This philological knowledge is a means of the recognition that God has acted in particular times and places. The biblical message would have taken a different form if it had been expressed in the Indian languages. Again, this recognition is the foundation of the movement of inculturation. Contextualisation that is going on today in India is grappling with problems to be solved. Today philology is the key for philosophy and theology.

Our knowledge of the Bible should be proportionate to our general education. For instance, to read the first chapters of Genesis and understand them the modern reader should be able to distinguish between the religious teaching of the Bible about creation and the pre-scientific outlook of the author.

Another fallacy is the thesis that only the scriptural texts and passages that are most relevant to our life today are important. Today there is a legitimate quest of relevance in biblical studies, an existential approach to the Bible. But this emphasis should not take us to pragmatic vivisection and electionism, to study only those parts of the Bible that have easily convertible theological value or value for the spiritual life. This form of relevance is theologically harmful. God’s saving action for Man/humankind includes not only the spiritual and theological aspects of life, but also the secular and profane aspects (war, depravity). They show how man tried to fit the whole of his existence into the relationship with God. God’s saving action must revitalize the whole man. Biblical thought is alien to our modern dichotomy of man into “soul” and “body”, to the “atomistic individualism” of our thinking, to the modern understanding of what is religious (or spiritual) and profane. Man is “his body”, a personalized and animated body, an incarnate spirit. This is God’s creature, therefore the whole man, in his physical needs, in his intellectual development, in his psychosomatic growth, in his social intercourse. In his housing, education, status, political progress, quite as much as in his spiritual, moral, religious formation, all this can be a vehicle for God’s saving action. It is the whole man, body and soul, the man-in-the-world, the man-with-others, man in the society that must respond to God. The whole man saved in and through God’s people–this is God’s purpose, the aim of his divine plans revealed in the Scriptures.

Ethical mores recorded in the Bible are deeply rooted in the soil of the ancient Near East. Men and women of the biblical period were children of their own age and culture; their thought-patterns and ideas were coloured with the Semitic surroundings; their very language followed the rhythm of Semitic parallelism. Students of the Scriptures came to realize that lsrael and Christianity were not born in a vacuum, but that God intervened in the world. To understand well what Yahweh has done for us, we must know the life and culture of this nation, to whom He said: “You will be my own possession (segullah) among all peoples “(Ex 19:5).

The first step in the interpretation of the biblical text is to establish the literary form of the passage. If we walk into a modern library, books are classified according to the type of literature: fiction, poetry, history, biography, drama, sociology, philosophy, theology, science, computer science, library science. If we know their literary form or genre, our approach to the book becomes different. For instance, if I read two books dealing with the same historical event and one book is fiction, the other historical, I do not place them on the same footing. Thus, if I read the history of Henry VIII and the work of Shakespeare dealing with the same king, my attitude towards each of them is certainly different. When I see the film The Exorcist and read the book, my approach is surely different.

The Bible is the library of the people of God, of ancient Israel and of the first century Christian Church. lt contains diversity of literary forms which should be classified by the students. The emphasis on the literary form is called Formgeschichte. If the reader knows that the book of Jonah is a fictional didactic parable, s/he knows that the author is not giving a history of the relations of Israel and Syria, nor presenting the story of Jonah in the whale’s belly as a serious account of a true happening; nor can s/he take the statement about the sun standing still in Jos 10:13 according to the rules of strict history, but in the light of poetic license, since it is a fragment of highly poetic song. If this had been understood earlier, the “Galileo scandal” would have not taken place in the Church history. With his encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu (DAS), Pius XII voiced official approval of the modern trends in the historico-critical exegesis of the Scriptures. “Let the interpreter then, with all care and without neglecting light derived from recent endeavour to determine the peculiar character and circumstances of the sacred writer, the age in which he lived, the sources written or oral…he had recourse and the forms of expression he employed” (DS 3829; Vatican II, DV no.12).

JIVITACHIM UTRAM

January 19, 2009

*Fr.Ivo da Conceição SOUZA

(Povitr Atmeache Firgojent, Moddganv)

Prostavna: Aichea sonvsarant sobhar sovloti asat dusreancho nirop amkam mellunk. Durdisnnem amkam rokddeoch khobro dita. Bholaike vexim, rajkornna vexim amkam mahiti mellta. Ami him novlam gheunk dhanvtat, hi vollokh amkam faideachi poddot mhonn ravtat. Jezucho nirop akhea sonvsarak pavlo. Amkam to ieta. Ponn tachi som’zonni ami gheunk ozunii pavunk na, tachem mol korunk ozun xokunk na. Az tachea Utracher firti nodor marum-ia.

1.1: Jezu pattlean khub lok zom’talo, tachea patthlean vetalo, taka aikunk sodhtalo. Tachem Utor aikunk, pekovnni mellounk piddest ani somazantle bhairail’le koddkar poreant tache patthlean vetale. Jezu kitem korta zait? Koddkar mhollear somazantle bhairail’le monis, tankam kuttumbant poreant zago naxil’lo, ponn Jezu tankam borim korun novean somazant bhitor kaddta. Tech borabor tanchim patkam bogxita, tankam novim mon’xam korta. Jezuk zai bhavarth. Bhavartha vorvim tim borim zatalim.

1.2: Dev mhollear Jivit. Hem jivit mhollear Uzvadd ani Boll. Jivitachim Utram tache sovem asat, oxem Simanv Pedru mhonnta: “Saiba, konna-xim mhonn veteleat ami? Tujim Utram sasnnik jivitachim”(Ju 6:63.68). Tachem Utor povitr, bollixtt, pillnnukoi haddta toslem. To eka Utran patok bogxita, pidda-rog pekoita, novean manddavoll ani sobhitai sonvsarant haddta. Dekhun tache dusman upzotat. Te tachim vismitam nakarinant, ponn tache pattlean lagtat: “Son’varacho tum kiteak mhonn vavr kortai, tankam borim kortai, koxim tujean patkam bogsum ieta?”(polle Mk 2:1-28).

1.3: Vismitam korun, Jezu jivit dita. “Hanv jivit tumkam subham’ponnim diunk ailam” (Ju 10:10). Jen’na to vismitam korta, to jivit dita. Koddkarak to pekovnni dita, patkanchem bogsonnem dita, jivit dita. Kodd mhollear patkachi kheast asli, dekhun monis mhello zaun, taka ghorantlo bhair ghaltale. Taka somazant svat naxil’li. Jezu utr amni aplea xisank apli xikovn dita (Mt 1-7), uprant aplea kornneamni Devachem Raj ailam mhonn dokholl korta. Koddkarak boro korta, tem hangasor poilem vismit (polle Mt 8:1-4; Mk 1:40-44): voxeachi pidda, ti mon’xak nattak korta, patkachi khunna, somudaiacho bhair kaddta (DS 28:27-35; Lv 13:14).

2.1: Koddkar mhello, taka konnoch hat lainaslo; tachean dormsevent ani somajik jivitant vantto gheunk zainaslem. Taka ‘afuddnaka’, oxem somajik dhoronn aslem. Jezu taka hat laita: “Hoi, mhaka zai: tum nitoll za!”(Mt 8:3b). Ho monis sarkoch kuxal zalo astolo, kiteak vorsanchim vorsam taka konnoch hat lainaslo. Ixttagot taka mell’li, zoit taka mell’lem. Mogachi khunna ti!

2.2: Magir to taka iadnika-xim vochon taka dakhoi ani Moizesan formail’lem dan di mhonn sangta (Mt 8:4). Jezuk naka soglleank gom’lolem, sorv svater ‘perganv’ ghatlolo. Tech bhaxen taka zai amim amche nem’-kaide pall’lele.

2.3: Zaite pavttim ami ‘healers’-am-xim vetat, thoim bovall asta, heo ani teo pidda boreo keleo mhonn ‘perganv’ ghaltat. Pekovnnarak zai aplem nanv proghottlolem. Taka zai sogllea lokan thoinsor ailolo. Taka zai poixe, nanv, kirti.

3.1: Devachem Utor amim kholavnche svater, tea Utracher ami add vetat. Jezucho nirop proghottche boldek ami amchem nanv gazounk sodhtat. Amche dhoronn vegllench. Jezu te bhaxen korinaslo. Hea vellar amchi drixtt marum-ia. Amchea Goeam khub pekovpi (healers) asat. Te khorench Devachem Utor mogan proghtt’tat, vo tankam zai apaplo labh ani faido?

3.2: Khorench mhollear tamnni Jezucho nirop favte bhaxen proghottunk zai, ponn chuki astat, thoim ache Povitr-Sobhechi zobabdari. Vhoddilamni hacher lokx dovrunk zai. Tankam apovn xiddkaunk ai, tankam margdorxonn diunk zai, nazalear khub lok chukint poddolot, magir nittaeyer ghalunk zaunchemna.

3.3: Devache pekovnnechi khobor soglleamni sangunk zai. Dev pekoita. Ponn pekovnni kuddi-otmeachi zaunk zai. Dev amche kuddik bholaiki dita. Amich ti khubdam hogddaitat. Dekhun chotur ravun amchem jivit cholounk zai.

Sorvxevttim, tacho nirop ami aikunk zai. Bhavarthachi goroz amkam poddta. Ho bhavarth amim kholaunk zai, hea bhavrthan sogllea oddchonneank amim fuddo korunk zai. He vorvim amchem jivit bhavarthachem, mogachem, bhorvanxeachem ani sovostkayechem zatlem…

SUTTKECHEM ZOIT

January 19, 2009

*Fr.Ivo da Conceição SOUZA

(Povitr Atmeache Firgojent, Moddganv)

Prostavna: Somestank suttka zai. Amchea disadispott’ttea jivitant bhorvanxean ami suttkek ravtat. Sobhar pavttim amkam hi suttka mellona, ponn ami nimanne suttkek axetat, ti mhollear mornna vorvim amkam mellteli. Jezu mornna ani jivontponna vorvim suttka zhoddun amkam ti dilea.

1.1: Zaite pavttim ami fosovtat, kainch amkam somzona, ami bolli zatat. Sonvsari mulliam amkam bhuloitat, ten’na ami vatt chuktat. Amchem gnean amkam vatt khoinchi dhorunk zai, tem sangta, ponn amchi khoxi sobhar pavthhim chukon vegllich vatt dhorta ani hem bhaxen ami trasant poddtat.

1.2: Ho sonvsar amkam vegllench dakhoita. Jhigjhigta tem bhangar nhoi, oxem amche bhaxent ek mhonn’nni asa, ponn toxench ghoddta: amkam naka, tench amkam oddun haddta.

2.1: Adlea Roma’-ant ani Grecia-nt svotontr ani gulam’ astalet. Adlea Korarant Israel Ejiptachea gulam’ponnant asli, tika suttka mellta (Sutt 21:2). Sorvesvor Dev aple projek suttka diunk sobhar khunna dakhoita (Sutt 7:5): 7:14-11:10). Dev aple chomotkar korta ani apli soddvonnik podvi kollit korta.

2.2: Jezu mhollear sonvsaracho Uzvadd : “Hanv sonvsaracho Uzvadd. Mhozo pattlav kortat, tim kallokhant cholchim nant, ponn tankam Jivitacho Uzvadd astolo” (Ju 8:12). To amkam apli vatt dakhoita, ponn hi vatt ovghodd vatt, khursachi vatt, dekhun ami dusrech vatten vetat. Jezun mhonnlam: “Konnak mhozo pattlav korchi khoxi asa, zalear tanni aplech khoxechi vatt soddchi, dor-disa aplo khuris ukolcho ani mhoje pattelan ieunchem” (Lk 9:23). Khorench mhollear, “ak’kho sonvsar zoddit ani aploch ibadd vo aplench ghorttann korit, zalear mon’xak koslo adav’ (Lk 9:25). Amchi svotontrai mhollear Devachea bhurgeanchi svotontrai. Devacho Atmo amkam choloita, dekhun ami Devachim bhurgim (Rm 8:14). Atmeachea bollan ami Devak “Bap’pa” (ABBA) mhonntat. Hea kallache koxtt-dogd Devache mhoime kodde sor korunk zaina (Rm 8:18). Devan amkam svotontrai diunche khatir rochleant Rm 8:21-25). Sorvesvoracho Atmo asa, thoim svotontrai asa (2 Kor 3:17). Jezuchea Utra pormonnem cholot, zalear ami khoreponnim tache xis ani svotontr zaunk pavtat (Ju 8:31). Sot amkam svotontr kortelem (Ju 8:32).

3.1: Amkam hem apovnnem asa, mhonnche svotontraen amim jiyeunk (Gal 5:1.13). Ponn hi svontontrai amkam patkachea trasant ghalunk favona, ponn Devachi Somurt amkam svotontraecho purn kaido zaunk zai (Jakob 1:25). Amchi zhoddti hea svotontraechea kaidea pormannem zateli (Jakob 2:12). Amkam sonvsar svotontrai bhasaita, ponn ti diina, ufrattench amkam gulam’ponnant ghalta. Ami osokt, sobhar pavttim chuktat, dekhun Povitr Atmo amchea adharak ieta (Rm 8:26). Devacho mog ami kortat, dekhun sogllea vostumni Dev amchea boreak vavurta mhonn ami zannonv (Rm 8:28).

3.2: Devachim bhurgim mhonn ami svotontr (Mt 17:26). Amkam bhailea folliancher kantoilele Somurtintli svontontrai mellta, kiteak hi Somurth amchea kallzancher boroileli asa (2 Kor 3:3.5-17). He Somurti pormannem amim cholunk zai. Zaite pavtthim ami visor ghalun patkant ani trasant poddtat. Devachea Putacho rupkar amche sovem rigounk ami vavrunk zai (Rm 8:29). Dev amchea sangata asa.

Sompadnni: Sorvxevttim, Kristi jivit bhov ovghodd, kiteak amcheo vaitt vonddavnneo ami Devache khoxe pormannem cholounk zai. Sonvsari bhulovnneancher amim thabo ghalunk zai, amkanch nhoikarunk zai, hem disadispott’ttim korunk sompem nhoi. Ponn teach borabor amim Devachem chitr amchea monant dhrounk zai: Dev mog, mogoch, to mogall Bap, to amkam bogxita, to amkam rakhta-samballta. Hem amchem suttkechem zoit, Devachench zoit…

Inter-religious Dialogue

January 19, 2009

*Ivo da Conceiçao SOUZA

Introduction

In the contemporary world, which has become a ‘global village’ thanks to communication revolution, there is still chaos: dissensions, wars, riots, bioterrorism, fundamentalism, racism, casteism, fanaticism, political corruption, despotism, religious intolerance, cultural clashes, new forms of slavery. It is multifaceted selfishness that is playing havoc in our society. It disturbs and damages the fabric of happy life of human society. At this difficult juncture, we are witnessing an effort to come back to brotherhood, to a just, peaceful, more humane existence. Religion, which is a search for the ultimate meaning of existence, should guide us, provide inspiration and strength. But unfortunately religion has become the tool of politics, of communalism and of fundamentalism. It is source of confusion.

We are living in a multiethnic, multicultural and multireligious country, a real mosaic of people, of cultures, of religions. In the words of the great historian, Fr.Henry HERAS, SJ, “The history of India is not the history of a nation, it is the history of a continent in which many peoples have been fused together. It is the history of many migrations, all of which have left gold dust in their train; it is the history of many dynasties which all together have raised monuments. Finally, it is the history of a constant desire to seek truth through the centuries, such metaphysical ideas as are not to be found in the most renowned civilizations of the ancient world”.[1] We have to live with them. We cannot repress them, whether covertly or overtly, without losing equilibrium. All religions should unite in their effort to bring back peace to the world through renewal and dialogue. There is a need for dialogue, within and without: dialogue within the Church herself (intra-religious dialogue) and dialogue with the world, with other religions, cultures, ideologies and traditions (inter-religious dialogue). We are at the end of the United Nations-proclaimed Year of Dialogue Between Civilizations. John Paul II had dedicated his World Day of Peace 2001 message to the Year of Dialogue. I shall dwell on the meaning of dialogue in the modern context of chaotic growth and then, after providing anthropologico-theological basis for dialogue, speak about the concrete steps towards dialogue of the Church, within and without.

A. Dialogue

1. Its Meaning

Dialogue, which is derived from the Greek word dia-log(on)/izomai, can be defined as a “conversation on a common subject between two or more persons”. It is a “con-versation”, talk across the table on a common topic, exchange of views, encounter through the word. It is an integral dimension of human existence. It challenges one’s life and changes each other. It is a living, growing I-thou relationship. It is a process of growth. It begins with mutual admiration and acceptance. Its primary purpose is to understand the other and enrich mutually. It is a process of participation in the common learning from the other so as to change and grow. It is a process of transformation. It is an expression of transformative love.

God created cosmos out of chaos, but man through his misuse of freedom “de-created” the world and “created” a new chaos. Now we have to “create” continuously cosmos out of chaos. This is not possible without man’s dialogue with God. Only then will Man be able to promote dialogue with others. Man will have to affirm the value of life against chaos. He will have to work with other human beings for the common goal, for the transformation of the world.

Dialogue means listening to others. Unless we listen to others, we cannot learn from others. To listen, we have to hold others in admiration and respect. We have also to affirm our identity and offer our values to others. This will be a process of mutual enrichment, mutual liberation and mutual growth. Only after a self-critical process, can we engage together in critique of the contemporary society, together can we work for integral development and peace, for a new social order.

Dialogue is an integral part of the Church’s mission. When we are suffering in India from an intolerant atmosphere, we can only survive through dialogue. It is the new way of being Church today. It is the only way to survival. It is the only way to peace. We have to listen to the expectations and grievances of the people within the Church, as well as of the people of other religions and cultures, we have to apologize for our faults, learn from our mistakes, see others in a new light, discover liberative dimension in us and in others; in short, shun what divides us, and promote what unites us.

Dialogue should go together with proclamation. Dialogue should be an integral part of evangelization, of mission, of universal ministry of reconciliation. We are pilgrims, we are searching truth. We cannot claim to have monopoly of truth, we are still groping for truth, we see the truth dimly, as if in a mirror (cf.2 Cor 3:18), we have to share with one another, we have to walk with others. On the one hand, we affirm our self-identity, whilst on the other hand, we share in the search of truth in which ‘others’ are engaged.

Dialogue is mutual communication between two individuals or members of different religions and ideologies. It is a reciprocal process: giving and receiving. It presupposes our ability to reason and to change. Each culture may say that its way is the way, to the exclusion of all others. But a genuine dialogue between cultures requires a respect for differences. There has been collision between religions and civilizations. Ethnico-religious differentiation has been used as a justification for brutal conflict, genocide, and persecution. We have crossed the boundaries of elimination of subordinate groups through genocide or of assimilation through ethnocide by dominant groups to dialogue, living encounter and pro-existence. [2]

2. Anthropological Dimension of Dialogue

Dialogue is an integral dimension of human existence. It challenges, recharges and enriches each other. Dialogue is an on-going process. We are bodily beings, in a body-soul unity. Aristotle has defined man as a zoon logikon, which can be understood as animal rationale, as it has been in the philosophical and theological tradition, or rather as “living thinking, intelligent being”.[3] We are social and institutional beings. We grow through affirmation by others, we form our self-identity. We are beings of history and of tradition. We live amidst collective experience. We interpret our personal experience in the light of the collective horizon. We evaluate traditions through our spatio-temporal lenses. We are also liable to misinterpret history, jeopardize progress and bring destruction. Man is not only social and historical being, he is also linguistic being. His personality grows to maturity when he is addressed by others with words of affirmation and love. Language helps us to grow, it becomes our food and a word of support. Human existence is essentially and deeply linguistic. Man questions, decides, hopes.[4] Vatican II sums up the basic questions asked by every human being in his present condition:

The problems that weigh heavily on the hearts of men are the same today as in the ages past. What is man? What is the meaning and purpose of life? What is upright behaviour, and what is sinful? Where does suffering originate, and what purpose does it serve? How can genuine happiness be found? What happens at death? What is judgment? What reward follows death? And, finally what is the ultimate mystery, beyond human explanation, which embraces our entire existence, from which we take our origin and toward which we tend?” [5]

Through dialogue we share experiences and reflections in order to reach a more complete world vision (Weltanschauung) and be willing to respond with wholehearted commitment for a better world. We listen to others in order to ‘under-stand’ their living worlds and be with them in their joys and sorrows.

There has always been tension between ‘self’ and ‘the others’ or ‘strangers’ (meant by the word bárbaroi), which remains still today in our pluralistic society. The problem of “the one and the many” goes back to ancient Greek philosophy. [6] We have still to steer between Scylla of metanoia of the ‘self’ and Charybdis of paranoia of ‘the other’.

Today philosophers have provided us with the vision of man as a relational being, through his I-thou dimension. The I-thou relationship is deeply rooted in the transcendental I-Thou relationship. Together they co-create a new entity, a “We”. A person cannot be owned, objectified, reified, used as an object (‘thing-ified’).The opposite of I-thou dialogue is monologue, which implies selfishness and manipulation. In genuine dialogue we accept and affirm others in their personhood. By doing so, we nurture the divine spark in them, and thereby actualize God in the world. A world without dialogue, unity or community is a “broken world”. Martin BUBER, Martin HEIDEGGER, and Gabriel MARCEL have elaborated this dialogical dimension of Man.[7] Dialogue has been a concern of philosophers right from Socrates and Plato till today with Hans-Georg GADAMER. This dialogical approach is quite evident in John Paul II’s writings.

Hans-Georg GADAMER brought to light how through the interplay of questions and answers dialogue provides a deeper understanding of a theme. Listening and responding brings openness, which enables us to reach the core-meaning, revealed in the inner word (Logos). Every statement is to be regarded as an answer to a question. Dialogue presupposes goodwill to reason and change. There should be equality and reciprocity, common subject-matter and common questions, which will facilitate the “fusion of horizons” (osmosis) between the speaker and the listener.[8] Only through dialogical dialogue,– which means piercing the ideology in order to reach that trans-logical realm of the heart,– we are ultimately allowed ‘under-standing’, namely standing under the same horizon of intelligibility.[9] But understanding is not a purely cognitive matter, accumulated new information for the sake of curiosity. It is a change in one’s way of being-in-the-world, a conversion. [10] We have to move from tolerance and co-existence to enriching, fulfilling dialogue, a transformative encounter of living worlds.[11]

3. Theological Foundation of Dialogue

Religion is a dialogue between God and humanity, between God and the individual, between I and Thou. Salvation history from the beginning is presented as a dialogue between God and Man—the Father speaks to his children.[12] The Paschal Mystery is the culmination of the dialogic relations between God and Man in Christ. The Eucharist is the kernel of the Christian life and of the priestly ministry. It nourishes our dialogue with the Risen Lord. Prayer is a dialogue with the Lord of our life and history.

This dialogue is rooted in the Trinitarian Mystery: The Triune God is love and communicates love within and without. The Trinity will imprint its seal of love on every genuine religious experience, on every community, one every scriptural record. The Triune God is the Lord of creation and of history. He wants to be the Lord of every human heart. His greatest gift is human freedom. There cannot be meaningful dialogue among civilizations without religious freedom. Every culture of the world, with its diversity of gifts, has to contribute with diversity in unity, to the building up of a “civilization of love”. Differences among civilizations should be respected, since every individual has the right to truth according to the dictates of his/her conscience, within the context of his/her cultural heritage.

Dialogue is not a luxury, but a vital necessity. It is not a new gimmick for conversion to another religion, but sharing of light and values, “like a householder who draws old and new from his treasure” (Mt 13:52). It is conversion of heart and mind. The Church is not only donor, but also recognizer and receiver of values, like harmony, brotherhood, honesty, fidelity, love. The Church has to be self-critical and proclaim brotherly love that corresponds to the aspirations of the contemporary Man, which are also the griefs and anxieties of the followers of Christ (GS 1). Evangelization consists in proclaiming the law of love which is “the basic law of human perfection and hence of the world’s transformation” (GS 38), or as St.Paul states: to evangelize means to “bring to perfection the Gospel of Christ” (Rm 15:19) or to “realize the event of the Word of God” (Col 1:25).[13]

We need understanding, education to forgive, mutual admiration and respect, apology and openness. We have to forgive and forget the past. Dialogue is a practical virtue, an art. It requires effort to love, to understand, to forgive, to change. We have been hurt and we have hurt, let us apologize, let us forgive. Unfortunately, we have been witnessing in these last years attacks on the Christian and Muslim communities on the part of the Hindutva activists. Instead of bridges, we have been building walls.[14] True, we have every right for protection under the Indian Constitution. We should retort to baseless allegations, serenely, calmly. We need more dialogue at this juncture. Christendom cannot be identified with Christianity. We have to identify the latent factors, political and econonomic, as well as prejudices and myths, underlying communal tensions. Without renouncing to our faith, we have to revise our attitudes and behaviour. Truth will always prevail…We start the dialogue from where we are, without diluting or suspending our convictions. Otherwise, we shall not have anything to offer. For example, we cannot dilute the teaching of the uniqueness/universality of Christ, which is central to Christianity… We would deny our identity. We have to stand by our faith, honestly and courageously.

It is to be recorded in golden letters how Mrs.Gladys STAINES publicly forgave the criminals (suspected Hindu militants), who burnt alive her husband, Graham Stuart STAINES, and her two sons, Philip and Timothy inside their jeep, in Orissa. John Paul II asked forgiveness on March 12, 2000, for all the offences committed in the past by the Church. We have to accept the realities of history with humility and courage.

We have to dialogue with Hindus, as well as with Muslims, Sikhs, Parsees, Jains and people of tribal religions. Let us show our identity and our convictions. In India all religious communities are to be respected, the fundamental human rights are to be promoted. Outfits of Sangh Parivar should not interfere with the personal options in the field of religion. Our dialogue with the world religions should go beyond praying together and sharing together the experiences and doctrines. It should go beyond the dialogue of praxis or living. It should address the political reality of India, threatened today by political corruption, communalism, violent fanaticism and distorted, militant nationalism. As Jesus has challenged the power structure of his times, with his “anti-power” stance, with his servant leadership, so our task is also to upset the value system that does not respect human dignity and usher in a new face of society.[15] Dialogue should be self-critical, creatively revising historiographical problems and contributing to the democratic process of rebuilding the nation as a secular (or rather a multireligious) state.[16] It should be at micro and macro levels, including ‘tree-top level’, with the governmental and non-governmental organizations (NGO’s), on all issues affecting our human rights and existence. [17]

4. Levels of Dialogue

There can be dialogue at four different levels: a. The dialogue of life, where people strive to live in an open and neighbourly spirit, sharing their joys and sorrows, their human problems and preoccupations; b. The dialogue of action or cooperation, in which Christians and others collaborate for the integral development and liberation of people; c. The dialogue of religious experience or witnessing, where persons, rooted in their own religious traditions, share their spiritual riches, for instance, with regard to prayer and contemplation, faith and ways of searching for God or the Absolute; d. The dialogue of theological exchange or doctrinal, where specialists seek to deepen their understanding of their respective religious heritages, and to appreciate each other’s spiritual values. The fruit of dialogue will be a deeper communion with God and with other people. We shall grow in friendliness and be able to promote and defend “common ideals in the spheres of religious liberty, human brotherhood, education, culture, social welfare and civic order”[18] We are living with fear psychosis in today’s world where everything seems to divide us. After Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the twin towers of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in America, the situation has become darker. Also, in India we are witnessing terrible attacks against the Christians and Muslims for years together. It is high time to promote understanding between cultures and religions. In his address at the Plenary Assembly of the United Nations in New York, Archbishop Renato MARTINO, Head of the Delegation of the Holy See and its Permanent Observer to the U.N., explained that No authentic dialogue can take place if it fails to respect life“.

B.Dialogue with World Religions

1.Paul VI and Dialogue

The Secretariat for the Non-Christians was created on the Pentecost day of 1964, presided then by the Cardinal Paolo MARELLA and later in 1989 renamed Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue. Soon was proposed to the world his first Encyclical Ecclesiam Suam (August 6, 1964), which is the “charter of inter-religious dialogue”. It delineates the principles and motivations, the scope and methods, the modality and spirituality. Paul VI in his Encyclical Ecclesiam Suam sees the concrete situation in a series of concentric circles around the central point at which God has placed us. The first circle is mankind, the human race, the world, with common nature, common life with all its gifts and all its problems (ES 97-107). The second circle comprises of the worshippers of the One God, like the Jewish people and the Muslims, and all the followers of the great Afro-Asiatic religions (ES 108). The third circle includes the Christians (ES 109), differing from us on many points concerning tradition, spirituality, canon law, and worship. To the last circle belong the Catholics (ES 113).

Paul VI came to India on December 2, 1964, as a pilgrim of peace, of joy, of serenity and love. His Encyclical Ecclesiam Suam had already set the stage for such a dialogue. In his speech on December 3, to the representatives of the non-Christian religions, Paul VI spoke of the intense search for God in India, quoting from the Hindu Scriptures, the Upanishads:

From the unreal, lead me to the real; from darkness, lead me to light; from death, lead me to immortality”.[19]

2.John Paul II and Dialogue

John Paul II is a man of dialogue, a specialist in theory and practice. Karol Wojtyla belongs to the Dublin School of Philosophy. Under the leadership of Fr.Mieczyslaw KRAPIEC, OP, the Lublin School retained Thomistic realist principles and incorporated insights of Gabriel MARCEL, Martin HEIDEGGER, Karl JASPERS and Martin BUBER, all with their emphasis on the I-thou relationship. With his grammatical, philological and philosophical background, John Paul II enriched theological reflection with anthropological, personalist dimensions.

In all his writings, John Paul II provided the Church principles and guidelines for dialogue.[20] Also through his visits to different countries, the Holy Father fostered dialogue. His visits to Constantinople (1979), Canterbury (1982), Geneva (1984), Khartoum, Sudan (1993), India (January 31-February 11, 1986 and November 6, 1999), Sri Lanka (January 21, 1995) and the World Day of Prayer and Fasting for Peace at Assisi, Italy (October 27, 1986) are to be recorded in golden letters. [21] He has also given audience to several leaders of other churches, religions and states, including the Soviet President Mikhail GORBACHEV, originator of Perestroika and Glasnost.

In Tertio Millennio Ineunte (TMI, n.56), John Paul II is clear about the duty to proclaim the Gospel in an atmosphere of dialogue. Interreligious dialogue “cannot simply replace proclamation, but remains oriented towards proclamation“. “We know in fact that, in the presence of the mystery of grace, infinitely full of possibilities and implications for human life and history, the Church herself will never cease putting questions, trusting in the help of the Paraclete, the Spirit of truth (cf. Jn 14:17), whose task it is to guide her “into all the truth” (Jn 16:13)”.

3.World Religions and the Church

i.Since John XXIII sounded the clarion-call for a renewal of the Church (Aggiornamento), there has been an effort for an “Open Catholicity”. Windows were opened and there was a new outpouring of the Spirit of God, a new Pentecost.

ii.Some preliminary remarks about terminology are in order. The expression “non-Christian religions“, though commonly used in our theological discussions, may be misleading. It can be used in statistical sense, for the sake of division, like Jews and non-Jews or Greeks and non-Greeks. It is rather “pre-Christian” religions. It may smack of old colonial thinking (“religious colonialism“). But in default of a better one we shall use the term. But still we can call it, also not quite correctly in the modern communication era, “unevangelized“. We call them world religions and quasi-religions (Marxism, Communism, Fascism, in the words of Paul Tillich).

iii.Statistically, Hindus are 81 per cent (including Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, constituting about 23.5 per cent of the total population; if deduced from the Hindu total, the Hindu percentage would come down to 60-62 per cent), Muslims about 12 per cent, Christians about 2.3 per cent, Sikhs 2 per cent, Buddhists .75 per cent, Jains .50 per cent, others .50 per cent. About 60 per cent of the total Christian population are in southern states of Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh. Christians constitute a majority in the tribal states of Nagaland, Meghalaya, and Mizoram, 31 per cent in the state of Goa and 26 per cent in Manipur, 26 per cent in Andaman and Nicobar Islands.

This “little flock” is placed in the midst of one billion of Indian population. But Christians who are less than 3 per cent of one billion people of India, are serving the nation through their social commitment, particularly among the marginalized, forsaken people. But it is a pity that we project a ‘divided’ picture in India: Catholics, Protestants, Syrian Christians, without speaking of different sects. It is a ‘scandal’ for our neighbouring non-Christian brethren.

iv.The Problem

With new discoveries of peoples and nations in the sixteenth century CE, a reality experienced all over the ‘global city’, the Church had to grapple with the problem of God’s salvific will, on the one hand, and the salvation of the unevangelized, on the other hand. Questions arose in our research: How can the unevangelized be saved? Are the different religions many ways to the one goal? Do all religions not contain God’s Revelation? Is Salvation to be found in the other religions as such? In short, are the religions of the world salvific? How is the Church to be missionary in a pluralistically religious world? Should the Christian missionaries continue to proclaim the Good News of Jesus Christ to people of other faiths? How do we proclaim the uniqueness/universality of Jesus Christ, his Lordship, in the face of similar claims from the followers of other religions?

v.Solutions

Threefold Approach to Other Religions:

Christian attitudes towards the world religions range from the rigid exclusivism of Karl Barth,–for whom there is only one true, revealed religion,–to the broad tolerance of John Hick’s ‘universe of faith’ pluralism.

There are three main approaches proposed by theologians to solve the tension between the two fundamental axioms that salvation is through Jesus Christ alone, and that the good God equally desires the salvation of all human beings.

a)Exclusivism or Ecclesiocentric theories with an exclusive Christology: Both Christ and the Church are constitute of salvation, so that salvation is mediated exclusively through Jesus Christ, and only to those who explicitly express faith in him; and, in some versions, are members of the Christian Church, have the possibility of salvation. Outside the visible Church there is indeed no salvation.[22] Genuine experience of God is confined to Christian revelation alone and there is only a blurred vision of God and little salvific significance in other religions. They do not mediate salvation.

b)Inclusivism or Christocentric theories with an inclusive Christology: Christ, but not necessarily the Church, are constitutive of salvation. Salvation is mediated through death/Resurrection of Jesus Christ, but it can reach all men of good will, even those who do not explicitly believe in Christ’s salvific role.[23] In Rahnerian terms, people who are saved without explicit confession of their faith in the unique Saviour Jesus, are called “anonymous Christians“.[24] They are said to belong to the Church voto (implicitly) if not re (formally)–though this way of speaking or even of thinking is rapidly falling into disuse. Other religions are generally not regarded as salvific in these theories, for the unevangelized are saved, in spite of their religions, but not through them. Such God-seekers are saved because they are in some way linked to Jesus,– as Piet Fransen has suggested, through an option for love, the kernel and the heart of Jesus’ proclamation of the Kingdom of God.[25] Thus, according to them, though genuine experiential knowledge of God may be found in other religious traditions, they are not salvific. The fullness of truth is prerogative of Christianity.

c)Pluralism or Theocentric theories:

All religions are equally salvific paths to one God. No saviour can be universal, his salvific influence is limited to his/her own followers. They opt for a ‘Theocentric’ as opposed to a ‘Christocentric’ perspective of history.[26] For John Hick, God/Ultimate Reality is unknowable and ineffable in itself. He draws a distinction between “the Real in itself and the Real as manifested within the intellectual and experiential purview of that tradition”.[27] He called for a ‘Copernican revolution’ in Christian theology to place God at the centre, not Christianity, under the suggestion that “all the religions of mankind, including our own, revolve round him”.[28] There are more variations of these theories (G.D.Kaufman, Paul K. Knitter). Other religions too are salvific in their own right (de iure) and do not need a reference to any ‘unique’ saving event. They constitute a ‘universe of faiths’, centred round an ineffable and ultimately undefinable God.

vi.Theological Reflection

There are efforts among worldwide theologians for elaborating a theology of religions.

*Religion means search for God.[29] It is a constitutive dimension of human existence and clearly meets a deeply rooted human need to find meaning in life, as well as the corresponding social need to find a community which shares and maintains that meaning. In the light of Jewish-Christian Revelation, it springs from the human nature created in the image of God (cf.Gn 1:26f). This longing for the Infinite and for Transcendence is within our hearts and leads us to God (cf.Rm 1:20; Acts 17:26-27). St.Paul tells that the Gentiles are inexcusable because they came to know God and they have the law within their hearts, yet they failed to glorify the Lord, who for this reason left them to their own weaknesses and aberrations (cf.Rm 1:18-2:16; 3:15; see Jr 31:31-34; Ez 36:23-28, cf.27; 37:14; Rm 5:5; 2 Cor 3:6.7-18). The oracles against the nations (Am 1-2; Is 13-21; Jr 46-51; Ez 25-32) do not target the deficiencies found in the religious systems, but rather anti-social aberrations and crimes, pride, cruelty (cf.Acts 14:17; Ps 95:5; 1 Cor 10:20). God of the Covenant, of promises, of faithful love and compassion. God does not leave alone humankind that is striving after him (cf.1 Tm 2:4).[30]

*Religion shapes our culture, that is people’s attitude towards nature, man, history. The mission of the Church is to reveal/communicate God’s love to all people and nations (AG 10). All have but one origin and one final purpose (RMi 31-32). Through evangelization cultures are not diminished, but rather are prompted to open themselves to the newness of the Gospel’s truth. The process of inculturation has to continue. The Church cannot abandon what she has gained from her inculturation in the world of Greco-Latin thought. This criterion is valid for the Church in every age, even for the Church of the future.[31]

*“Outside the Church, No Salvation”:

1.The axiom, “Outside the Church there is no salvation” (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus), has given a negative image. It goes back to the image of the Noah’s Ark, portraying salvation through baptism (1 Pt 3:20). It asserts positively that there is “Salvation inside the Ark”, not negative statement: “No salvation outside the Ark”. It says explicitly that Christ “died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God” (3:18), preached the good news after his death (3:19) to those very people “who formerly did not obey” (3:20), and hence were not inside the Ark. Therefore, the assertion is “No salvation outside Christ”.

2.The image was adopted by Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus of Lyons and Clement of Alexandria. It is for the first time given its complete, but now negative, formulation by Origen: Outside this house, that is, the Church, no one is saved”.[32] But it was by Cyprian of Carthage that it was applied with fully consistent juridical exclusiveness.[33]

3.The strict literal sense in which the axiom was taken is shown in this sentence from Augustine’s disciple Fulgentius of Ruspe: “There is no doubt that not only all heathens, but also all Jews and all heretics and schismatics who die outside the Church will go into that everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels”. [34]

4.Boniface VIII in 1302 in his Bull Unam Sanctam affirms clearly the unity of the Church and within the time-bound ideology seems to propose the hierocratic theory in an extreme form—there are two swords , the temporal and the spiritual powers, but the temporal is under the control of the spiritual, concretely under the jurisdiction of the Pope. Outside the “papal” Church, identified with the mystical Body, there is no salvation: ”We declare, state and define that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of all human beings that they submit to the Roman Pontiff” (DS 875/ND 804). But it was not maintained by the subsequent Popes. The doctrinal point is that the Church is necessary for salvation.

5.Only after the discovery of new continents with morally good people theologians, like Robert Bellarmine and Francis Suarez, and the Council of Trent itself, in 1547, in its Decree on Justification, taught that justification could be given either through baptism or through its desire (DS 1524/ND 1928). Against the rigorism of the Jansenists, the proposition that Extra Ecclesiam nulla conceditur gratia” (“Outside the Church there is no grace”: DS 1379/2429) was condemned by Clement XI in his Constitution of September 8, 1713.

6.When the Encyclical Mystici Corporis by Pius XII (June 29, 1943) seemed to give again a rigorous interpretation (cf.DS 3821) and Father Leonard Feeney, with a group of Catholics in Boston, tried to take the words of the encyclical quite literally, namely that everyone outside the Catholic Church is damned, the Holy Office/See intervened to protest against this teaching, with a letter to the Archbishop Cushing of Boston, dated August 8, 1949, [35] emphasizing the ancient doctrine of the necessity of the Church for salvation—all, in order to be saved, must be in some way related to the Church, at least in desire or longing (voto et desiderio), even implicitly, and this desire must be informed by supernatural faith and love (cf.Hb 11:6). It declared that those, who stated that no one out of the visible Church could be saved, or “falsely maintained that people can be saved equally well in any religion”, was themselves out of the church and excommunicated. [36]

*

* *

–Our approach to the world religions and quasi-religions cannot be one of superiority, blind condemnation or total rejection. On the one hand, we cannot opt for eclecticism or syncretism; on the other hand, we cannot state lightly that “all religions are equal” and fall into relativism. There should not be any compromise, any diluting, any false irenism, or a policy for befriending the brethren of other faiths, but an attempt to delve deeper into the mystery of divine Grace. By studying other religions we shall deepen our own understanding of Christianity, as well as of the other religions. Aware of their deficiencies and shortcomings, we shall realize better the uniqueness and universality of Christ. We shall no longer consider the other religions as inimical to our own. Christ is the only Saviour but his salvific Grace already reaches the non-Christians. It reaches them, not in spite of their non-Christian religions, but by using the very elements of genuine truth and goodness that are present in these religions.[37] They can be better in their own religion and at the same time, draw near to Christ in the recesses of their hearts. Religions are not parallel or complementary to Christianity. Rather, they are convergent, within God’s unique saving plan, on Alpha and Omega, that is Christ, and through Christ on God (cf.Eph 1:4-10; Col 1:20; Rev 1:8; 21:6; 1 Cor 15:28: “God will be all in all”). Dialogue will continue for ever when we shall be with the “fountain of living water”, in the assurance given by God himself that “I shall be God and he will be my son” in the new Jerusalem, the “new heaven and the new earth” (cf.Rev 21:1). From the existential viewpoint, the world religions become the “ordinary” paths of salvation, taking into account that it is Grace welcome through faith, “working though love” that saves (cf.Gal 5:6). They belong to the general/universal history of revelation and salvation, whereas Christians and Jews, and, to a certain extent, Muslims belong to the particular/special history of salvation. On the historical level, members of the world religions receive salvation through their religious practices and beliefs, but on the transcendental level, the Triune God is present in their genuine experience. Since the Word is present and active in the ultimate, transcendental level, any genuine experience will be a saving dialogue with Christ, even if it is not consciously known. Every divine self-gift points towards Christ as its goal and focus, therefore every experience of God’s self-communication is always related to and depends on Christ.[38]

–It is not religions that save us, but God through the religious traditions and systems. It is God who saves us through his Word and Spirit, the “two hands” of God.[39] The Grace of Christ is not confined to any institution or means, it is never commensurate with them; often the Christic grace can purify and elevate seemingly inadequate human means far above their natural efficiency. From the existential viewpoint, a non-Christian can be touched by God and his Grace in his present situation. This does not contradict the tenet of our Christian faith, namely that Christ is the “Way, the Truth and the Life” (cf.Jn 14:6). While giving us all the salvific means, God did not abandon all those who “faultlessly have not come to the explicit knowledge of the Gospel of Christ or his Church, yet sincerely seek God and, moved by his Grace, strive by their deeds to do his Will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience” (cf.LG 16); or “those who faultlessly have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, but who strive to live a good life, thanks to his Grace”. He reaches them “in ways known to him alone” (GS 22), in a thousand of unchartered/unstructured ways through the Word (Logos), that “enlightens every Man that comes to the world” (Jn 1:9). Their scriptures, their rites, their traditions, the lessons and examples of their teachers, prophets (rishis) and saints, are means which God’s Providence allows them to use for their growth until they can hear and understand the call of Christ. [40]

–Their sincere, noble lives will be fulfilled by the Christic Grace, in the fullness of Christ (cf.Jn 10:10). Knowing that “the wind blows where it wills” (cf.Jn 3:8), Vatican II reminds us of the activity of the Spirit of God also “outside the visible body of the Church”. The Council speaks of “all people of good will in whose hearts Grace works in an unseen way”. The rationale is clear: “Since Christ died for all, and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a maner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery”.[41] The Holy Spirit sows the ‘seeds of truth’ among all peoples, their religions, cultures and philosophies.[42] Countless images, myths and symbols are shadows of the Reality to come. The activity of the Spirit in creation and human history acquires an altogether new significance in his action in the life and mission of Jesus. The “seeds of the Word” (semina Verbi) sown by the Spirit prepare the whole of creation, history and Man for full maturity in Christ”.[43] There may remain admixture of truths and errors in their personal and social ‘credo’, which can be brought to refinement through the knowledge of the Christian mystery. This positive approach to the mystery and theology of world religions should not diminish our missionary love and zeal. On the contrary, it should fill us with more enthusiasm to bring our brethren of other religions to a fuller light and life.

The Declaration Dominus Iesus and Dialogue:

–The Declaration “Dominus Jesus” (DI) of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (August 6, 2000) was intended to be a response to deviations in the understanding of Christian faith in the context of today’s multireligious context and the current interfaith and interchurch dialogue.[44] It seems to target as a precautionary measure the theologians of the Third World, chiefly the Indian thinkers. The document does not contain any new magisterial teaching, but recalls the theology of Vatican II, as it has been re-interpreted in subsequent documents. It is to be read together with other Church pronouncements. It may have given the impression of closing discussion than encouraging ecumenical dialogue. The Declaration has put its finger on the important issue of dialogue with the world, with the Christians and the people of other religions. Often dialogue has been more polemical than dialogical. Its central concern has been the dangers of reductionism, relativism and indifferentism. But there have been dissenting voices: It is obstacle to decades of painful ecumenical movement among Christian communities, and chiefly in the dialogue with the other religions. It may reverse the progress ushered in by Vatican II and decades of its follow-up. Its language is rather negative. It did not take into account the historico-personalistic understanding of Revelation and Faith, which came as a source of renewal from the Vatican II.

–The Congregation has two primary concerns, namely “the definitive and complete character of the Revelation of Jesus Christ” and “the nature of Christian faith compared to that of belief in other religions” (DI 4). The first concern can be spelt out in three steps: first, “the fullness and definitiveness of the Revelation of Jesus Christ”; secondly, “the mystery of His incarnation, death and resurrection is the sole and universal source of salvation for all humanity”; and thirdly, the unique mediation of Jesus Christ as the center of salvation history. The Declaration tries to balance two theological concerns: on the one hand, Christ is the sole mediator of salvation (cf.1 Tm 2:5); and on the other hand, further study is needed about how others who remain through no fault of their own outside Christianity, can be saved. But it states immediately that “Christ’s unique mediation does not exclude participated forms of mediation of various types and degrees”, but such forms receive their value from Christ.

Pedagogy of Dialogue: The fruit of Dialogue should be our common growth in truth and love. Together we should turn to God with greater commitment. “By dialogue we let God be present in our midst; for as we open ourselves in dialogue to one another, we also open ourselves to God”.[45] Therefore, if we want to address our brethren, our dialogue should be phased.[46] We have to advance gradually. We have to start from what is common to us. We may have to bracket what will bring our conversation to a halt, if we are not going to give the partners the feeling of superiority of Christianity on our part or of proselytizing.[47] We have to stress on human and religious values that we share and have to work together to make these values operative in our community. Our service should be an expression of love. Division of any sort openly contradicts the will of Christ and is a stumbling block to the world.

CONCLUSION

Our study carried us through the rich dimensions of dialogue which is the key word today in our relationships. Inspite of the clouds in the Asian-Indian sky, we see a silvery line. We are hopeful that this is the “new springtime of Christian life”.[48] Theologians should continue to work with courage and optimism. All of us should be renewed in mind and heart. It is not the “commandment” of going to the world and proclaiming the Good News that spurs us on, but the mission itself, the love that is burning within our hearts (cf.Lk 24:32; 2 Cor 5:14). We are being watched by our Hindu brethren. It is worthwhile to listen to a Hindu brother, Dr.Kalpesh Gajiwala, who found in Christ a Perfect being, who is ONE with the Supreme Divinity—God. [49]According to him, God manifested himself at different times in different ways: “Ekam sad, bahuda vadanti viprah” (The Truth is one, experts call it by many names). God is Inexpressible. The Word has existed from the beginning of time and has been leading humanity into truth before he became flesh. Dr.Gajiwala feels that Christians have a superiority complex: “they wave their passports for heaven, stamped “Jesus Christ” confident they will be saved (whatever they do) and everyone else doomed”. “It seems as if after giving the Son to the world, God is sitting in some corner somewhere, forfeiting the divine rights to omnipotence and sovereignty, while God’s agents here on earth decide who is going to be saved and by what means”. [50]

We cannot play god, nor can we carry on our old mentality. We need to renew our minds and hearts through an effective, fruitful dialogue.

Cf.Gustavo GUTTIERREZ, Las Casas: In Search of the Poor of Jesus Christ, trans.Robert R.Barr, Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1993. See its review by J.Chathanatt, SJ., VJTR (Vidyajyoti Journal of Theological Reflection), September 1996, pp.635f. Bartolomé de las Casas, the great sixteenth century Dominican missionary to the ‘Indies’, is known as “Defender of the Indians” (as the indigenous people of the Americas were mistakenly called , later on ‘Red Indians’), for he prophetically denounced butchery and slavery—after half a century of Spanish domination there was a demographic catastrophe caused by malnutrition, disease, war and hard labour; by 1570 the population was reduced to about nine millions from about sixty-five millions.

Cf.Luigi BOGLIOLO, SDB, “I Fondamenti Antropologici del Dialogo”, Portare Cristo all’Uomo. Congresso del Ventennio dal Concilio Vaticano II, 18-21 Febbraio 1985, vol.1: Dialogo, Pontificia Universita Urbaniana, Roma, 1985, Studia Urbaniana, 22, pp.557-565

Cf.Gerald O’COLLINS, SJ, Fundamental Theology, Darton Longman & Todd, London, 1980, pp. 130-150

Vatican II, Declaration on Non-Christian Religions, Nostra Aetate, n.1

Cf.Rudolf C.HEREDIA, “Pluralism, Tolerance and Dialogue”, VJTR 60, 1996, pp.255-264.

Cf.Seymour CAIN, Gabriel Marcel, Regnery/Gateway, Inc., South Bend, Indiana, 1963, pp.35-48 and 78-86

Cf.Bosco AUGUSTINE, SDB, “Understanding as Questioning in Gadamer’s Truth and Method”, Jnanadaya.Journal of Philosophy, issue no.8, June 2000,Salesian College, Yercaud, Salem Dt., pp.15-20, cf.p.19

Cf.Sandra M.SCHNEIDERS, “From Exegesis to Hermeneutics: The Problem of the Contemporary Meaning of Scripture”, Horizons 8, 1981, pp.23-29; see for details, Ivo DA CONCEICAO SOUZA, “Biblical Hermeneutic for Today”, LUCEAS.Year Book of Rachol Seminary, Jubilee Issue, 1984-1985, pp.78-87

Cf.Bosco AUGUSTINE, SDB, “Understanding as Questioning in Gadamer’s Truth and Method”, p.20. See Hans-Georg GADAMER, Truth and Method, Sheed and Ward, London, 1975; Paul RICOEUR, Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning, The Texas Christian University Press, Forth Worth, 1976; Raimundo PANIKKAR, Myth, Faith and Hermeneutics, Asian Trading Corporation, Bangalore, 1983, pp.4-10, cf.p.8; Bernard LONERGAN, SJ., Method in Theology, London, 1972, p.155

Cf.William T.CAVANAUGH, “Balthasar, Globalization, and the Problem of the One and the Many”, Communio, Summer 2001, vol.28, n.2, pp.324-347; Xavier PRADES, “The Tribe or the Global Village?: Fundamental Reflections on Multiculturalism”, Communio, pp.348-376

Cf.Jr 7:23; 31:33; Ez 36:28; Gn 1:27; Ex 4:22; DV 14, 21

Cf.Stanislas LYONNET, SJ, La Carita pienezza della Legge secondo san Paolo, Editrice A.V.E., Roma, 1959, p.75

Cf.”Holy Peace, not Holy War”, The Tablet, October 20, 2001, p.1483. See David TRACY, Dialogue with the Other.The Inter-Religious Dialogue, Peeters Press, Louvain, pp.95-123

Cf.Lucien LEGRAND, “Power in the Bible”, Jeevadhara, January 1989, pp.43-56

Cf.T.K.JOHN, “Today’s India and its Religions”, VJTR 60, 1996, pp.12-30

Cf.Felix WILFRED, “Inter-Religious Dialogue as a Political Question”, VJTR 60, 1996, pp.361-374. See also Archbishop Angelo FERNANDES, “A Global Spirituality of Social Responsibility”, VJTR 60, 1996, pp.31-43

Address of John Paul II to the Leaders of Non-Christian Religions, at Rajaji Hall, Madras/Chennai, on February 5, 1986, in: “The Pope Speaks to India”, St.Paul Publications, 1986, Bandra-Bombay, pp.82-87, cf.p.86

Cf.Paul PULIKKAN, Indian Church at Vatican II, pp.452-458

John Paul II, Inaugural Encyclical Redemptor Hominis (RH, The Redeemer of Man), March 4, 1979; Enc. Slavorum Apostoli (SA, Eleventh Centenary of Sts Cyril and Methodius), June 2, 1985; Enc.Dominum et Vivificantem (DV), May 18, 1986; Apostolic Letter, Euntes in Mundum (EM, Conversion of Russia to Christianity), January 25, 1988; Enc.Redemptoris Missio (RMi, Mission of the Redeemer), December 7, 1990; Enc.Ut Unum Sint (UUS), May 25, 1995

Luigi ACCATTOLI, John Paul II.Man of the Millennium. A Biography, trans.Jordan Aumann, OP, St.Pauls, Mumbai, 2001, pp.101-105

Mariasusai DHAVAMONY, “Theology of Religions”, R.Latourelle and R.Fisichella, eds, Dictionary of Fundamental Theology, New York: Crossroad, 1996, p.888; see also his article, “Christian Theology of Religions”, Seminarium, Year 38, n.4, October-December 1998, pp.751-769

See C.I.GILLIS, Pluralism: A New Paradigm for Theology, Louvain: Peeters Press, 1993, p.18

Cf.Karl RAHNER, “Christianity and the  Non-Christian  Religions”,Theological  Investigations, vol.5, 1966, pp.115-134; Idem,  “Missions”,  Sacramentum  Mundi, vol.4,  Theological  Publications  in India, Bangalore, 1978, pp.79-81.

Cf.Piet FRANSEN, SJ, “How Can Non-Christians Find Salvation in their own Religions?”, in: Christian Revelation and World religions, ed. And introduced by Joseph Neuner, SJ, Compass Books, Burns & Oates, London, pp.67-122, cf.p.91-103

C.L.GILS, Pluralism: A New Paradigm for Theology, p.19

J.HICK, An Interpretation of Religion: Human Responses to the Transcendent, London: Macmillan, 1989, p.236

John HICK, God and the Universe of Faiths (London: Collins/Fount Books, 1977), p.131 .

Religion is derived from Latin religio (from relegere, “to turn to constantly” or “to observe conscientiously”; from religari (“to bind oneself back”) ; and reeligere (“to choose again”). Its etymological derivation points to three possible religious attitudes. According to St.Thomas Aquinas, religion “denotes properly a relation to God” (Summa Theologiae, II-II, q.81, a.1)

Pietro ROSSANO, “The Bible and the Non-Christian Religions”, in: Bulletin. Secretariatus pro non Christianis, Vatican City 1967, n.4, pp.18-28

John Paul II, Encyclical Letter, Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason), September 14, 1999, nn.70-72

In Jesu nave, 3:5: MPG 12, 841

De unitate Ecclesiae, 6: CSEL III/1, 214f.

De fide ad Petrum, 38, 78

Cf. ”Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston”, The Christian Faith in the Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church, ed.J.NEUNER, SJ-Jacques DUPUIS, SJ(ND), Seventh Revised and Enlarged Edition, Theological Publications in India, Bangalore, 2001, n.854/3867, p.329; see Denzinger-Schoenmetzer (DS) 3866-3873, esp.3872. Cf.the Code of Canon Law (CIC ), can.849: “Baptism, the gateway to the sacraments, is necessary for salvation, either by actual reception or at least by desire”. Father Leonard FEENEY, self-appointed as the “Defender of Faith”, in his commentary “From the Housetops”, held that all non-Catholics –except the catechumens with an explicit desire (voto explicito) of joining the Catholic Church—would be excluded from eternal salvation, and because of his obstinacy against the warnings of the authority was excommunicated on February 4, 1953.

For a survey of interpretations, cf.Hans KUENG, “The World Religions in God’s Plan of Salvation”, Christian Revelation and World religions, pp.25-66, cf.pp.31-46

Cf.Jesuit Scholars, Religious Hinduism. A Presentation and Appraisal, St.Paul Publications, Allahabad-Bombay, 1964, in his Introduction, “A Christian Approach to non-Christian Religions”, Pierre FALLON,15-21, cf.19; see Vatican II, Aetate Nostra, n.2; Ad Gentes 4; LG 17

Cf.Geral O’COLLINS, Fundamental Theology, pp.122-125

Jacques DUPUIS, SJ, “Le Verbe de Dieu, Jésus Christ et les religions du monde”, NRT123, 2001, pp.529-546; Idem, “The work of the Potter”, The Tablet, November 3, 2001, pp.1560-1561; see also his book, Vers une théologie chrétienne du pluralisme religieux, Cerf, Paris, 1997. On Logos-Christology, see also B.POTTIER, SJ, “Note sur la mission invisible du Verbe chez saint Thomas d’Aquin”, NRT 123, 2001, pp.547-557

George M.SOARES-PRABHU, “Inculturation-Liberation-Dialogue”, Biblical Themes for a Contextual Theology Today, ed.by Isaac Padinjarekuttu, Jnana-Deepa Vidyapeeth Theology Series, Pune, 1999, pp.51-78, cf.58-62

GS 22; cf.LG 16. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Dominum et Vivificantem, May 18, 1986, n.53

John Paul II, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Ecclesia in Asia, November 6, 1999, n.15; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptoris Missio, December 7, 1990, n.28; GS 11.22.26.38; AG 4.15; LG 17

John Paul II, Ecclesia in Asia, n.16; Rmi 28

John Paul II on June 16, 2000, “ratified and confirmed” it and ordered its publication (n.23).

John Paul II, “Address at Rajaji Hall”, The Pope Speaks to India, p.85

Cf.Jacob KAVUNKAL, SVD, “Mission in the Context of Other Religions”, VJTR 64, 2000, pp.917-927

Cf.Arvind SHARMA, “Epoché and Hindu-Christian Dialogue”, VJTR 64, 2000, pp.927-932, cf.p.930

John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Tertio Millennio Adveniente, November 10, 1994, n.18: AAS 87 (1995), p.16

Dr.Kalpesh GAJIWALA, “Liberating the Unlimited. A Hindu’s Reflection on Christ”, VJTR, February 1993, pp.105-109, cf.p.106

Dr.Kalpesh GAJIWALA, “Liberating the Unlimited. A Hindu’s Reflection on Christ”, p.108

The World Parliament of Religions: It was the first major inter-religious gathering, held at Chicago in 1893 as part of the celebrations to mark the four-hundredth anniversary


*Dr.Ivo da Conceiçao SOUZA is Professor of Biblical Exegesis and Sociology in the Patriarchal Seminary of Rachol GOA 403719, INDIA.

[1] Cf.Rusi M.LALA, “Remembering Father Heras”, Jesuit Parivar, No.30, Diwali 2001, pp.10-13, cf.p.10

[2] Cf.Gustavo GUTTIERREZ, Las Casas: In Search of the Poor of Jesus Christ, trans.Robert R.Barr, Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1993. See its review by J.Chathanatt, SJ., VJTR (Vidyajyoti Journal of Theological Reflection), September 1996, pp.635f. Bartolomé de las Casas, the great sixteenth century Dominican missionary to the ‘Indies’, is known as “Defender of the Indians” (as the indigenous people of the Americas were mistakenly called , later on ‘Red Indians’), for he prophetically denounced butchery and slavery—after half a century of Spanish domination there was a demographic catastrophe caused by malnutrition, disease, war and hard labour; by 1570 the population was reduced to about nine millions from about sixty-five millions.

[3] Cf.Luigi BOGLIOLO, SDB, “I Fondamenti Antropologici del Dialogo”, Portare Cristo all’Uomo. Congresso del Ventennio dal Concilio Vaticano II, 18-21 Febbraio 1985, vol.1: Dialogo, Pontificia Universita Urbaniana, Roma, 1985, Studia Urbaniana, 22, pp.557-565

[4]Cf.Gerald O’COLLINS, SJ, Fundamental Theology, Darton Longman & Todd, London, 1980, pp. 130-150

[5] Vatican II, Declaration on Non-Christian Religions, Nostra Aetate, n.1

[6] Cf.Rudolf C.HEREDIA, “Pluralism, Tolerance and Dialogue”, VJTR 60, 1996, pp.255-264.

[7] Cf.Seymour CAIN, Gabriel Marcel, Regnery/Gateway, Inc., South Bend, Indiana, 1963, pp.35-48 and 78-86

[8] Cf.Bosco AUGUSTINE, SDB, “Understanding as Questioning in Gadamer’s Truth and Method”, Jnanadaya.Journal of Philosophy, issue no.8, June 2000,Salesian College, Yercaud, Salem Dt., pp.15-20, cf.p.19

[9] Cf.Sandra M.SCHNEIDERS, “From Exegesis to Hermeneutics: The Problem of the Contemporary Meaning of Scripture”, Horizons 8, 1981, pp.23-29; see for details, Ivo DA CONCEICAO SOUZA, “Biblical Hermeneutic for Today”, LUCEAS.Year Book of Rachol Seminary, Jubilee Issue, 1984-1985, pp.78-87

[10] Cf.Bosco AUGUSTINE, SDB, “Understanding as Questioning in Gadamer’s Truth and Method”, p.20. See Hans-Georg GADAMER, Truth and Method, Sheed and Ward, London, 1975; Paul RICOEUR, Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning, The Texas Christian University Press, Forth Worth, 1976; Raimundo PANIKKAR, Myth, Faith and Hermeneutics, Asian Trading Corporation, Bangalore, 1983, pp.4-10, cf.p.8; Bernard LONERGAN, SJ., Method in Theology, London, 1972, p.155

[11] Cf.William T.CAVANAUGH, “Balthasar, Globalization, and the Problem of the One and the Many”, Communio, Summer 2001, vol.28, n.2, pp.324-347; Xavier PRADES, “The Tribe or the Global Village?: Fundamental Reflections on Multiculturalism”, Communio, pp.348-376

[12] Cf.Jr 7:23; 31:33; Ez 36:28; Gn 1:27; Ex 4:22; DV 14, 21

[13] Cf.Stanislas LYONNET, SJ, La Carita pienezza della Legge secondo san Paolo, Editrice A.V.E., Roma, 1959, p.75

[14] Cf.”Holy Peace, not Holy War”, The Tablet, October 20, 2001, p.1483. See David TRACY, Dialogue with the Other.The Inter-Religious Dialogue, Peeters Press, Louvain, pp.95-123

[15] Cf.Lucien LEGRAND, “Power in the Bible”, Jeevadhara, January 1989, pp.43-56

[16] Cf.T.K.JOHN, “Today’s India and its Religions”, VJTR 60, 1996, pp.12-30

[17] Cf.Felix WILFRED, “Inter-Religious Dialogue as a Political Question”, VJTR 60, 1996, pp.361-374. See also Archbishop Angelo FERNANDES, “A Global Spirituality of Social Responsibility”, VJTR 60, 1996, pp.31-43

[18] Address of John Paul II to the Leaders of Non-Christian Religions, at Rajaji Hall, Madras/Chennai, on February 5, 1986, in: “The Pope Speaks to India”, St.Paul Publications, 1986, Bandra-Bombay, pp.82-87, cf.p.86

[19] Cf.Paul PULIKKAN, Indian Church at Vatican II, pp.452-458

[20] John Paul II, Inaugural Encyclical Redemptor Hominis (RH, The Redeemer of Man), March 4, 1979; Enc. Slavorum Apostoli (SA, Eleventh Centenary of Sts Cyril and Methodius), June 2, 1985; Enc.Dominum et Vivificantem (DV), May 18, 1986; Apostolic Letter, Euntes in Mundum (EM, Conversion of Russia to Christianity), January 25, 1988; Enc.Redemptoris Missio (RMi, Mission of the Redeemer), December 7, 1990; Enc.Ut Unum Sint (UUS), May 25, 1995

[21] Luigi ACCATTOLI, John Paul II.Man of the Millennium. A Biography, trans.Jordan Aumann, OP, St.Pauls, Mumbai, 2001, pp.101-105

[22] Mariasusai DHAVAMONY, “Theology of Religions”, R.Latourelle and R.Fisichella, eds, Dictionary of Fundamental Theology, New York: Crossroad, 1996, p.888; see also his article, “Christian Theology of Religions”, Seminarium, Year 38, n.4, October-December 1998, pp.751-769

[23] See C.I.GILLIS, Pluralism: A New Paradigm for Theology, Louvain: Peeters Press, 1993, p.18

[24] Cf.Karl RAHNER, “Christianity and the  Non-Christian  Religions”,Theological  Investigations, vol.5, 1966, pp.115-134; Idem,  “Missions”,  Sacramentum  Mundi, vol.4,  Theological  Publications  in India, Bangalore, 1978, pp.79-81.

[25] Cf.Piet FRANSEN, SJ, How Can Non-Christians Find Salvation in their own Religions?”, in: Christian Revelation and World religions, ed. And introduced by Joseph Neuner, SJ, Compass Books, Burns & Oates, London, pp.67-122, cf.p.91-103

[26]C.L.GILS, Pluralism: A New Paradigm for Theology, p.19

[27] J.HICK, An Interpretation of Religion: Human Responses to the Transcendent, London: Macmillan, 1989, p.236

[28]John HICK, God and the Universe of Faiths (London: Collins/Fount Books, 1977), p.131 .

[29] Religion is derived from Latin religio (from relegere, “to turn to constantly” or “to observe conscientiously”; from religari (“to bind oneself back”) ; and reeligere (“to choose again”). Its etymological derivation points to three possible religious attitudes. According to St.Thomas Aquinas, religion “denotes properly a relation to God” (Summa Theologiae, II-II, q.81, a.1)

[30] Pietro ROSSANO, “The Bible and the Non-Christian Religions”, in: Bulletin. Secretariatus pro non Christianis, Vatican City 1967, n.4, pp.18-28

[31] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter, Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason), September 14, 1999, nn.70-72

[32] In Jesu nave, 3:5: MPG 12, 841

[33] De unitate Ecclesiae, 6: CSEL III/1, 214f.

[34] De fide ad Petrum, 38, 78

[35] Cf. ”Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston”, The Christian Faith in the Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church, ed.J.NEUNER, SJ-Jacques DUPUIS, SJ(ND), Seventh Revised and Enlarged Edition, Theological Publications in India, Bangalore, 2001, n.854/3867, p.329; see Denzinger-Schoenmetzer (DS) 3866-3873, esp.3872. Cf.the Code of Canon Law (CIC ), can.849: “Baptism, the gateway to the sacraments, is necessary for salvation, either by actual reception or at least by desire”. Father Leonard FEENEY, self-appointed as the “Defender of Faith”, in his commentary “From the Housetops”, held that all non-Catholics –except the catechumens with an explicit desire (voto explicito) of joining the Catholic Church—would be excluded from eternal salvation, and because of his obstinacy against the warnings of the authority was excommunicated on February 4, 1953.

[36] For a survey of interpretations, cf.Hans KUENG, “The World Religions in God’s Plan of Salvation”, Christian Revelation and World religions, pp.25-66, cf.pp.31-46

[37]Cf.Jesuit Scholars, Religious Hinduism. A Presentation and Appraisal, St.Paul Publications, Allahabad-Bombay, 1964, in his Introduction, “A Christian Approach to non-Christian Religions”, Pierre FALLON,15-21, cf.19; see Vatican II, Aetate Nostra, n.2; Ad Gentes 4; LG 17

[38] Cf.Geral O’COLLINS, Fundamental Theology, pp.122-125

[39] Jacques DUPUIS, SJ, “Le Verbe de Dieu, Jésus Christ et les religions du monde”, NRT123, 2001, pp.529-546; Idem, “The work of the Potter”, The Tablet, November 3, 2001, pp.1560-1561; see also his book, Vers une théologie chrétienne du pluralisme religieux, Cerf, Paris, 1997. On Logos-Christology, see also B.POTTIER, SJ, “Note sur la mission invisible du Verbe chez saint Thomas d’Aquin”, NRT 123, 2001, pp.547-557

[40] George M.SOARES-PRABHU, “Inculturation-Liberation-Dialogue”, Biblical Themes for a Contextual Theology Today, ed.by Isaac Padinjarekuttu, Jnana-Deepa Vidyapeeth Theology Series, Pune, 1999, pp.51-78, cf.58-62

[41] GS 22; cf.LG 16. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Dominum et Vivificantem, May 18, 1986, n.53

[42] John Paul II, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Ecclesia in Asia, November 6, 1999, n.15; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptoris Missio, December 7, 1990, n.28; GS 11.22.26.38; AG 4.15; LG 17

[43]John Paul II, Ecclesia in Asia, n.16; Rmi 28

[44] John Paul II on June 16, 2000, “ratified and confirmed” it and ordered its publication (n.23).

[45] John Paul II, “Address at Rajaji Hall”, The Pope Speaks to India, p.85

[46] Cf.Jacob KAVUNKAL, SVD, “Mission in the Context of Other Religions”, VJTR 64, 2000, pp.917-927

[47] Cf.Arvind SHARMA, “Epoché and Hindu-Christian Dialogue”, VJTR 64, 2000, pp.927-932, cf.p.930

[48] John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Tertio Millennio Adveniente, November 10, 1994, n.18: AAS 87 (1995), p.16

[49]Dr.Kalpesh GAJIWALA, “Liberating the Unlimited. A Hindu’s Reflection on Christ”, VJTR, February 1993, pp.105-109, cf.p.106

[50] Dr.Kalpesh GAJIWALA, “Liberating the Unlimited. A Hindu’s Reflection on Christ”, p.108

DEIVIK PRERONN

January 19, 2009

*Fr.Ivo da Conceição SOUZA

(Povitr Atmeache Firgojent, Moddganv)

Prostavna:

Az meren Povitr Pustokak khub vorteponn favlam, taka ami ‘povitr’ mhonntat ani khub mhotv-ani-mol ditat, kiteak tem Devachem Utor. Tem Devachem Utor, kiteak Devan tem deivik preronnen (divine inspiration) amche soddvonne khatir suchoilam. Devacho mog amkam monx’akullachea ithiasant kollit zala. Dev aplea provadiam ani aplea Puta vorvim uloila ani apli sasnnik evzonn ugti kelea. Ho thevo amim parkunk-samballunk zai.

Devacho Mog ani tachi Evzonn: Dev mhollear mog, mogoch (1 Ju 4:8). Tacho mog to amkam rochnnent ani soddvonnent dakholl korta. Dev aplem asnnem-soim’ mon’xall utramni ugddapem korta. To aplo mog mon’xakullachea itihasant tthavo korta ani utramni to uch’charta. Devachi zannvai amkam tache soddvonnik evzonnen mellta. To aplo mog ani tachi evzonn amche sovem kollit korta: mogachi evzonn. Hi evzonn kornneantlean ani utrantlean amkam drixttipoddta (Vatikani Vixvsobha, DV 2). To mon’xakullak aple ixttagotint bhitor kaddta. He evzonnecho ithias amkam Povitr Pustokant mellta.

Soddvonnecho ithias mon’xak hea sonvsarant bhitor kaddun suru zata. Abraham-ak apovnnem dita, taka raxttrancho bapui korta. To Dev koso mon’xancho ithias choloita. Israel projek apli proza koxi venchun kaddta. Ti ovisvaxi zata, toriiastona tika to bogxita ani novean mogan bhorta. Moizesa vorvim apli Somurth tika dita. Provadiam vorvim aplem Utor tika pavoita. Xekim, aplea Puta vorvim mon’xank uloita (Hb 1:1-3). To somest mon’xank uzvadd dita. To jivit ani mog vanttit asa.

Mon’xakulla khatir Devan kitem kelam, tem Povitr Pustokant amkam mellta. Hem sogllem deivik preronna khal boroilam. Povitr Pustok svorgar thavn poddunk na, ponn tem mon’xamni boroilam. Povitr Atmeachea uzvaddan tem ailam. Devacho on’bhov mon’xakullachea jivitant utramni tem uch’charlam. Bhovkorn Israel projechea jivitant Devan suchoilam ani projen on’bhovlam, tem poramporik kotha vortota (becomes tradition) ani xekim tem pustokachea rupan amkam mellta.

Devacho Sobd ani Korar: Povitr Pustokant amkam Devachea mogacho ithias mellta. Devan mon’xakulla khatir ani kheritponnim Israel proje pasvot kitem kelam, tem ami vachtat. Devachea mogachi chitt, oxem amcheamni mhonnum ieta. Dev aplem mogachem-ekcharachem jivit jiyeta, Povitr Trithvi mhollear mogachem jivit. Ho Dev amkam hea aplea mogache chollvollint bhitor kaddta. Tachi soddvonnik evzonn tachea ut’tom mogantli bhair sorta. Taka sasnnik Jivit mellche khatir, Devan sonvsaracho itlo mog kelo ki aplea ekleach Putak dilo (polle Ju 3:16). Dev mon’xak ithiasache machier haddta ani tache kodde mogachea ekcharant jiyeunk sodta. Amcho Dev mogacho ani ekcharacho Dev, to mon’xakodde sombondhant jiyeunk anvddeta. Aplem jivit-asnnem to mon’xank kollit korta. Monis hea sombondha vorvim soddvonn zhoddta. Devan amcho poilo mog kelo ani amche kodde Korar kelo (cf.1 Jn 4:10).

Adlo ani Novo Korar: Triek Devachea mogachem chitr amkam soimant-rochnnent mellta (cf.Rm 1:20;  Ut 1:26-27), ani tachea vismitamni (cf.1  Kor  15:3-4;  DI 17:24-27). Devachem Utor tachea kallzantlem ieta. Aplea Sobda vorvim sogllem amkam ailam. Amkam Devan aplea sarkeachim rochleant. Tachi mhoima mhollear jivo monis—tachem gnean, tachi khoxi, tachim bhavnnam, tachi rochnnechi podvi (creativity), tachi suropaechi ruch (sense of beauty). Ponn aple sot’techo ghoir-vapodd korun, to kallkhant poddta, tacho mog apsvarthi zata. Ponn Dev tache soddvonnek pavta, apli visvaxi doia-maia (Hebrev bhaxen hesed we-emet/emuna) kollit korta.

Jezu, Devachea mogachem chitr, amkam Devache evzonne promonnem jiyeunk adhar dita (2 Kor 3:18). Yahweh tachem nanv (YAHWEH, ‘I AM’)), asnneachi ani mogachi zhor. Tacho hetu mhollear amkam Jezu diunk (cf..Ju 1:14; 3:16). Devachi soddvonnik evzonn amkam Povitr Pustokant mellta. Tachi ap-proghottnni (self-revelation) oithiasik, utrantlean ani kornneantlean uch’charloli mellta (cf.DV 2). Tachi prokasnni ek Korar (Covenant) koso amkam mellta (Hebrev bhaxen berith—Greg bhaxen diatheke). Korar mhollear ek sombondh, ek natem Deva ani mon’xam modhim, Hanv-Tum ekchar (I-thou communion). Dev aplea mogachi chitt amkam Povitr Pustokantlean boroita.

Dev Israel projek apli proza koxi venchun kaddta, ten’na tika apnnem rochlea mhonn kollit korta, hi proza to ghoddun haddta. He projek aplo mog kollit korta, tika toear korta, Soddvonnar ietolo mhonn bhasaita, ani tika uzvadd dita.

Povitr Pustok mhollear ek Korar, Adlo ani Novo Korar (Greg utor diatheke mhollear ek disposition, koblat, vo nimanni khoxi) (cf.2 Kor 3:14). Devacho mog (hesed) mhollear hea Korarachi zhor. Povitr Pustok ekoch pustok nhoi, ponn 72 pustokam, Devachem Pustok tem, Pustokanchem Pustok (Book par excellence, scrip­ture“, graphe, cf.2 Tim 3:16; Jn 5:39; Mt 21:42; Rm 1:2). Hem Pustok povitr, deivik preronnen suchoilolem.

Adlo Korar Novea vo Dusrea Korarak toeari. Jeremiah provadi tachi khobor korta (Jer  31:31-34; polle 2 Kor 3:14: “Ponn tanchea gneanacher kallok poddlolo; khorem mhollear, az poreant. Adlo Korar vachtat, ten’na toch podd’ddo thoinch asa; kiteak konnoi Kristak ekvott’ta, ten’na matr, to podd’ddo koddsoron veta”; ani Hb 8:7: “Khorem mhollear, tea poilea korarak koslich kodd nasli, zalear dusrea anik korarachi koslich goroz aschi nasli”). Jezu ho Korar kaddun uddounk ieunkna, ponn sopurnnaiek pavounk aila (cf.Mt 5:17).

Az Judev Povitr Pustokak TaNaK (Tora’ [Somurth], Nevi’im [Provadi], and  Kethuvim [Ier Borovpam] (polle Sirak-achea Pustokachi Prostavna—Jezu, ben Eleazar, ben Sirak-achea natvan hem Pustok, Hebrev bhaxen boroilolem aslem, tem Greg bhaxen Krista-iugachea 132 vorsa bhaxantorailam, ten’na Adlo Korar tin bhagamni vanttlolo also: Somurt, Provadi ani Ier Borovpam; ani Lk 24:44, zhoim Jezu hea Pustokancho ul’lek korta: Moizesachi Somurt, Provadi ani Stotram, hem Pustok Ier Borovpam modhim poilem).

Povitr Pustokak anek nanvam asat: Somurt (“the  Law”, DS 31:24; 2 Rz 22:8), Pustokam (“the books“, Dan  9:2) vo Povitr Pustokam (“holy books“, 1 Mak 12:9;  2  Mak  8:23). Stephen Langton, Paris-achea Arsebispan (melo 1228 vorsa), him pustokam avesvoramni vanttlim; vers vo slok, 1528 vorsa, Sanctes Pagnini, OP, hannem keleat, Robert Etienne-an, 1555 vorsa, fudde ho vavr vhela.

Purannik Preronn: Purannik preronn (biblical inspiration) mhollear Devachi kherit svas-podvi povitr boroinnarancher asa, dekhun Dev hea pustokancho suruvat-dinnar ani sompadnnar (author-originator). Tim pustokam Povitr-sobheche svadhin keleant. “Sogllem Povitr Pustok (“All Scripture is inspired: Greg bhaxen pasa  graphe  theop­neustos) Devachea preronnan boroilam; xikvonn diunk, chuki kaddun dakhounk, lokak nittaier haddunk, tankam Devak man’ta toslea jivitache vatter fudde vhorunk, tem upkarta. Taka lagun Devacho khoro bhogt ut’tom’ zata ani koslea-I borea kamak purto zaunk pavta” (2 Tim 3:16-17). Hi podvi boroinnarank dilea, Povitr Atmeachi podvi ti, sobhekhatir ti dilea. Hem pustok tea kallar, te sonvskrutaient boroileant. Devachem utor mon’xanchea utramni ailam. Vatikani Vixsobha spoxtt xikoita: “Kollit kel’leo vostu, Povitr Pustokant melltat ani manddloleo asat, teo Povitr Atmeachea preronna khal boroileat. Khoreponninch Povitr Sobha amchi Mata, dhormdutanchea kallachea bhavarthacher visvas dhorun, Adlea ni Novea Koraranchi ak’khim pustokam, tanchea bhagam soit, povitr ani neimik (canonical) mhonn manun gheta; karonn, Povitr Atmeachea preronna khala tim boroileant mhonn Dev tancho sompadnnar ani hech pod’dotin tim Povitr Sobheche svadhin keleant. Povitr gronth rochunk, Devan om’kea-tom’kea mon’xank venchun kaddle; tankam hea vavrak lail’le astona, tannem tanchi xokti ani kuveti purayen vapuddleo; he toren, to tanche bhitor ani tanche vorvim vavrun-oi taka boroilolem zai aslem titlench borouncho vavr khore lekhok koxe tamnni angar ghetlo” (DV, Novembrache 18ver, 1965 vorsa, avesvor 3, ank 11).

Hi xikvonn amkam porot-porot mellta: Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, Benedikt XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, Pius XII , Divino  Afflante Spiritu (DAS).

Thoddeach utramni: Sogllim utram ekach utran atthapum ieta, hem mhollear Jezu Krist, Devacho Sobd (CCC 101-133). To monis zata (Ju 1:14), mon’xallaen to amkam mellunk ieta, mon’xall bhaxen to amkam uloita, amchi soddvonn to korta (DV 12). Aplea Bapaxim to amkam vhorta. Svorgincho Bap aplea bhurgeam kodde uloita (DV 21). Dekhun Povitr-sobha Povitr Pustokak man dita, jeporim Svamiache Kuddik respet-man dita. Devache preronnen Povitr Pustok boroilam (DV 11). Dekhun him pustokam povitr, vollerint manun ghetlolim.

Boroinnarancho Sohokaria: Mon’xamni aplea gunnancho, gneanacho, apkhoxecho ani ier sandheancho upeog kela. Povitr Pustok amkam soddvonnik sot (salvific truth) xikoita, nhoi vidhea—Devakodde sombondh korun, amkam salamoti-xevottak pavounk (DV 11). Kristi bhavart “pustokacho dhorm” nhoi, ponn Devachea Utracho dhorm.

Povitr Pustokacho Sodpus: Povitr Pustokant Dev mon’xank mon’xall toren uloita. Vivronn-foddnixi korunk mon’xall bhasanchem khol-khol xikop korunk zai, boroinnarachem mon apnnavuk zai, kallache ani sonvskrutaeche poristithichi porva korunk zai, sahitik jin’nos (literary genres) monant dhorunk favo. Povitr Atmeachea uzvaddan him pustokam boroileant, tor teach uzvaddan ticho orth somzun gheunk zai.

Khub pustokamni ek vixoi asa, mullavo vixoi hea pustokank ekchar dita, Devachi evzonn tthavi korta. Jezu maz-kendr. Jivi-taji povitrsobhechi porampora (living tradition) monant dhorunk zai. Sogllim sotam ekcharant asunk zai, ekamekakodde zhogddunk zaina, kiteak Devachich evzonn ti. Haka ami bhavarthachem onukoron (analogy of faith) mhonntat.

Dev Israel projek Ejiptantli suttka dita, hem ghoddit tichea itihasant mullavem. Jezuchem Jivontponn amchea bhavartachi bunead. Jezu xikoita, vismitam korta, devchar kaddta—tache dhormdut tachi xikovn proghott’tat—ani xekim tache xis ti boroitat. He bhaxen Xubhvortomanam upzotat.

Suttkechem Utor: Jezu aplea xisank mhonnta: “Tumi mhojem Utor tumche bhitor rigun dovorxat, zalear tumi khoreponnim mhoje xis zatoleat. Ani tumkam sot kollon ietelem ani sot tumkam svotontr kortelem” (Ju 8:31-32). Suttka diun monis aplo vikas korta, khub monis dusreank sot’tea diunk sodinant, kiteak tamnni sot uloilolem, tankam naka. Te sot uloun, tankam zaiti pillnnuk favlea.

Utor ani Atmo: Jezu ugteponnim sangta: “Atmo ki jiv dita, mas kiteakoch upkarona. Tumkam hanv uloilam, tim utram Atmo ani Jivit” (Ju 6:63). Jezuchem Utor Povitr Atmea vorvim ghott-thir zata. “Tumche modhim astona, hanvem tumkam heo vostu sangleat. Ponn Bap mhoje nanvim tumkam dhaddtolo to Xaroti, mhonnche Povitr Atmo, tumkam sogllem xikoitolo ani hanvem tumkam sanglam tem sogott tumchea monant haddtolo” (Ju 14:25-26). Povitr Atmeachea bollan Jezuchem utor jivall zata.

Jezu ani Povitr Pustok: Jezu Povitr pustok aple Avoiche unttient xikla. To Devachea Utrachi iad korta, aponn hea Utrak man dita, tache sovem hem Utor chalik ieta.

Dhormdut ani Povitr Pustok: Dhormdut Devachem Utor proghott’tat, tem Utor aplea rogtan poreant vistartat, hem Utor te on’bhovtat, tanchem munniarponn mhollear Devachea Utracher dhorlolem asa.

Sompadnni: Sorvxevttim, Devachem Utor mhollear tachoch mog amche sovem. Tachi khatri amkam preronna khal boroilolea povitr pustokamni mellta. Hem Pustok amim amchea kallza-monant dovrunk zai. Chukon, amich trasant poddtat, ten’na hench Utor amkam bhogsonnem haddta, vatt dakhoita, uzvaddan ani sontosan bhorta…

DEVACHEM UTOR

January 19, 2009

*Fr.Ivo da Conceição SOUZA

(Povitr Atmeache Firgojent, Moddganv)

Prostavna: Azkal utrak khub mol asta. Hem utor amkam jin’sonvar bhasamni mellta. Itlim sompork-sadhnam asat, ki lokak khub aikunk ani polleunk mellta. Hea utrak khub mhotv asa, khub probhav asa, khub boll asa. Hea utra vorvim amchea jivitant chali utpon’n zatat, noveo sonvoio upzotat, novi sonvskruthai akharun ieta. Devachem Utor tech porim ek novo somaz rochun haddta. Hea Utra vexim khol-khol vollokh gheum-ia.

Utrachem Boll:

Amchea Udentichea purvozam modhim uloilolea utrak khub boll ani mhotv aslem. Odik-korn deivik sobdak podvi asli, jeporim Ejiptak ani Mesopotamiek sobda vorvim sonvsar rochun aila, oslim totvam dhormant aslim. Mezopotamiek deivik nirnnoi (divine decree) ghodditam choloitalo. Deivik utrak devanchem boll ani sasonn aslem, mon’xamni tacher add vochunk nozo aslem.

Mon’xall utrakoi podvi asa, ponn ti unnea promannan mellta. Hem boll dobajik axirvadamni ani xrapamni (curses), koblatimni, bhasavnneamni ani ier bhasamni mon’xall sombondham vexim asta. Patxaiachem utor ier samanea mon’xachea utra poros odik bollixtt aslem, ponn soglleank xrap vo axirvad divpachi podvi asli.

Mejik-ant (magic) podvi ani boll utrancher dhorloli asli, mon’xacher nhoi, dekhun ek vak’ko aslo, to lipoun dovortalet. Oslo orth ulovpa koddlean sarkoch vegllo aslo.

Utrak mhotv ani mol astalem, kiteak tea sonvskrutaiamni boroilolem unnem astalem, odhik-korn uloilolem utor vapoddtalet. Oslea utrank bhasavnnamni ani koblatimni chodd probhav astalo. Utra vorvim ami amchea kallzant asa, tem uch’chartat, uprant tem utor amchea kariant jivall zata. Utrachem boll mon’xachea angant rig gheta, uloun ami amchench mon ugtem kortat ani amchem bhitorlem boll bhair spoxtt kortat. Amchea anvddeanchem boll bhailea sonvsarant uloilolea utra vorvim drixttipoddta, dekhun hem utor bollixtt asta ani tem togta. Osli uloilolea utrachi bhrant te sonvskrutint, zhoim boroilolea utrak odhik mol asta, thoim asona.

Devachea Utrachem Boll:

Adlea Korarant sobhar udharonnam melltat: Jakob Izakak fosoun tacho axirvad gheta, ponn malgoddo put Esau uprant dusro axirvad gheta, kiteak Jakobak dila to axirvad tachean rodh korum nozo (Ut 27:1-40). Laban Jakobak Rakela svater Leak potin koxi dita ani taka fottoita (Ut 29:23). Mikayehu aple avoikoddlem rupem kaddta, ti xrap ghalta, ponn uprant jen’na to avoik hem sangun dita, ti tacher axirvad ghalta (Fuddari 17:2). Nathan Davidak vopar sangta, ti to somzota, jen’na Nathan taka mhonnta: ‘Tunch to monis!” (2 Sm 12:7), ponn ho xrap tachea Uriasache bailen dilolea bhurgeacher poddta, to piddest zata (2 Sm 12:15). Utra vorvim ami boll on’bhovtat, nanv vollkhun ami mon’xachem boll vollkhotat.

Korar ani Devachem Utor:

Dev mon’xakulla kodde Korar korta, aplea Utran taka uzvadd dita, eka Utran sonvsar rochun haddta, eka Utran porza ghoddun haddta. Aple dha updes dita, he bhaxen aple mogache bandpas rakhunk xikoita.

Provadiancho Nirop:

Sorvesvorachem Utor amkam Adlea Korarant mellta, tem ami somzun gheunk zai: tem provadianchem utor. Devachem Utor taka ieta, tem tannem proghottunk zai. Tem boll ieta ani taka ulounk laita: “Xinv goroz ghalta: konn bhienastona ravot? Sorvesvor Dev uloita: bhakit korinastona konnachean ravunk zait?” (Am 3:8). Devachem Utor mhollear kovllo khavunk ani uprant Israelachea Ghorannea kodde ulounk (Ez 3:1), dhadosponn ani kallzacho sontos (Jer 15:16), provadiachea horddeant ani tachea haddamni rigta toslo uzo (Jer 20:9), damun dovrunk nozo toslo krodh (Jer 6:11). Provadiachea utrak deivik boll-probhav asta, bhasavnni ani sompadnni (fulfillment) asa, tea poros odhik bollixtt. Utor boll dita, je porim Jeremias provadiakodde ghoddta—umttunk ani moddun uddounk, nas korunk ani khala uddounk, bandunk ani vompunk (Jer 1:10). Devachea tonddantlem Utor taka ritem portem ieina (Iz 45:23), tem follam haddta: “Zoxem paus ani borof mollba thaun poddtat ani bexttim portun vochonant, bogor vomp’piak bim ani jevpak jevonn diunk zomin ximptat, ti sufoll kortat ani bim kirlaitat, toxench mhojea tonddantliem bhair sorta tem utor, mhoji khuxi pall’lea bogor ani hanvem korunk formailam tem xarthipavoilea xivai, nirfoll zaun mhoje-xim portun iena” (Iz 55:10-11). Tem Utor sasnnak urta, tem ek dis follam ditelem (Ez 9:8). Sorvesvorachem Utor Israelachea ithiasant orombhak thaun jivem, tem utor rochta (Ut 1:3) tem Jerusalem Sairus-achea nirnnoia meren bandta. Devachea Utra vorvim Abraham-ak ani Moizes-ak apovnnem mellta, Ejiptantli Israel porza bhair sorta, Joshua zoit vhorta, Samuel-ak apovnem ieta, Razvott suru zata, Davidak venchun kaddta, Raj doxim zata, Om’richem Ghorannem poddta, Asiri ani Kaldei bhosm’ kortat, Israelachi ani Judachi razvott poddta. Devachem utor rochta (Ut 1:3; Iz 40:26; 48:13; St 33:6.9; 147:15-18).

Utranchi Somzonni:

Greg utor rema mhonnche utor, mhonn’nnem, uloilolem utor, nirop vo ghoddit. Hebrev bhaxen davar, utor, tea bhair Greg bhaxen logos, hem asa. Novea Korarant rema 70 pavttim mellta, bhov thodde pavttim rema mhollear ghoddlam tem vo asa tem (matter or thing) (Lk 2:15: “Ami Behtlehemak vochum-ia ani jem kitem ghoddlam ani Sorvesvoran amkam kollit kelam tem polleun ieum-ia” (Lk 2:15). Tea bhair tacho orth Xubhvortoman (Rm 10:8) vo Kristachem utor: “Devacho sobd togta sodam sorvodam” (Rm 10:18; 1 Pt 1:25). Jezu Pedruk xiddkaita: “Kombean sad ghalche adim tum tin pavttim mhaka vollkhonaim mhonn sangtoloi” (Mt 26:75). Devachem utor mhollear Povitr Atmeachem torsad (Ef 6:17).

Devachea Utracho Probhav:

Devachem Utor laginch asa, tujea tonddant ani tujea kallzant, hem Utor tuka Devacher bhavarth dovrunk apoita tem Utor (Rm 10:8). Devachem Utor gazta ani sonvsarachea ximam poreant tacho sondex pavlo (Rm 10:18). “‘Khorench Devachem utor jivem ani bollixtt, tem donoi vattamni pazlole tolvari poros rombta” (Heb 4:12). Hem Utor Devanoch suchoilam: “Sogllem Povitr Pustok Devachea preronnan boroilam; xikvonn diunk, chuki kaddun dakhounk, lokak nittaer haddunk, tankam Devak man’ta toslea jivitache vatter fudde vhorunk, tem upkarta” (2 Tim 3:16).

Hem Utor ekchar bandta, tem vaitt asa, tem katrun bhair uddoita, somajik vaittam umttun uddoita, kuttumbant uzvadd ghlata, mon’xank dixa ani margdorxonn dita, soglleank jivall korta. Heach Utra vorvim mon’xanchem vorteponn ami vollkhunk pavtat, mon’xanche hok’k rakhunk ami xiktat, bhov-korn ostoreanchem, bhurgeanchem, onathanchem vorteponn manun gheunk kobul zatat.

Mon’xancho Zobab koslo zait?

Devachea Utrak amcho zobab bhavartacho zaunk zai. “Hoi, Dhonia, tum amkam uloi, ami tujem Utor aikotat”. Na zalear, ami amkanch vaitt kortat, kallkhant ami urtat…

Sompadnni: Sorvxevttim, Devachem Utor amkam sobhar bhasamni ieta, tem amim amchea kallza-monant gheunk zai, tem amim svikarunk zai, tem amim ballgunk zai, tachea uzvaddan jiyeunk zai…

jivitkonknni@rediffmail.com

ANKVAR MARIECHEM SVORGAR-VHORNNEM

January 19, 2009

*Dr.Ivo da Conceição Souza

Prostavna:

Agostache 15ver Ankvar Mariechem Svorgar Vhornnem, hi porob ami somarombhtat. He porbek koslo orth asa zait? Tea disa ami konnsam Devak bhetthoitat ani tancher axirvad ghaltat. Tea bhair, kheritponnim amcho des Bharat svotontr zala, tea disacho ami ugddas kortat.

Pius XIIvea Papsaiban Novembrache 1ler, 1950 vorsa, bhavarteanchea ddolleam mukhar hem sot dobajean spoxtt kelem: Ankvar Mariek, kuddi-otmea soit, svorgar vheli. Bhavartachem sot hem, tem Munificentissimus Deus, “Sorv-datar Dev”, (MD), Apostolik Ghottnnent proghottailam: “Ami bhavartachem sot koxem spoxtt kortat, Devache ap-proghottnnent tem asa: Devache Nixkollonk Mayek, sorv-ankvar Mariek, ticho sonvsari poinnacho vell somptoch, kuddi-otmea soit Devan svorgachea voibhovant vheli” (Denzinger-Schoenmetzer 3903). Nixkollonk Gorbhsombhov, Deivik Avoiponn ani Sasvott Ankvarponn hea bhavartachea vak’keant asat. Pius XIIvean oxem mhonnlam: “Tichea sonvsari jivitacho vell somptoch”, kiteak dhormxastream modhim bhasabhas choltali: Ankvar Maria meli vo na, ani uprant “tika svorginchea voibhovant vheli”. Devan tika vheli, kiteak ti poili-vhoili rochnna, soddvonnechem prothom’-foll. Jezu jivont zalo, to svorgar aple podven choddlo, ponn Ankvar Mariek Devan vheli. Ak’khe veaktin, kuddi ani otmean, tika jivont keli. Svorginchea voibhovant, mhonnche zago-vell na (beyond the categories of time and space), thoim ghott-khol sombondhant Povitr Trithve mukhar ani Jivont Jezu mukhar ti geli.

Bhavartan ami hem sot manun ghetat. Hem sot dusream sotam kodde vinnlolem asa: svorginchem dorxonn (beatific vision) ani kuddichem jivontponn.

Dhormxastreanchea mota pormonnem, Ankvar Maria Svamia sovem meli, Jeruzaleak, Gethsemanichea mollea lagsar tika nikhipilea, ani tichea Puta bhaxen, tichi kudd mornna ani nikhipinnea uprant kusonk na, ponn tika ubhi voibhovan bhitor kaddli.

Oithiasik Drixttavo ani Orth: Pius XII-vean ugddas kela: Novi Eva (Maria) ani Novo Adanv (Krist), hanche bhitor ghott soirigot asa—Even pap adharlam, tacher Jezu nove sonstint add zhuzta (Ut 3:15, “poilem xubhvortoman”, proto-evangelium); pap-vaittacher animornnacher add zhuzant Nove Evek mottea promannan vantto asa. Bhageovont Paulu hi xikovn aple Chittimni dita: Eka mon’xa vorvim somestancher mornnan raj choiloilem; ponn Jezu Krista vorvim Devachi doeallai dakholl zali (Rm 5:12-21, polle v.17). Jezu vorvim Dev amkam zoit dita: to amkam punorjivont korta (polle 1 Kor 15:21-26.54-57). Ankvar Mariek punorjivontponnant vantto dita. “Suriachea porzollan nhesloli ek bail, tichea paeam tolla also chondrim’ ani tichea mathear bara nokhetrancho mukutt”—Devache projek Jezu vorvim ani Ankvar Marie vorvim devacho menddro zoit dita (Prok 12:1).

Tika zhuzant vantto mell’la, dekhun Novea Adanvacheai Punorjivontponnachea zoitant tika Svorgar-Vhornnea vorvim mottea promannan vantto asa. Povitr Pustokant hea sotachim mullam-pallam melltat (cf.DS 3900).

Hem sot koxem zolmak ailam, tem dhormxastr amkam dakholl korta: Dhormxevik ritimni hem sot bhavarteanche kholavnne vorvim (sensus fidelium) utpon’n zalam; panchvea xenkddeant Udentiche Kristanv hi porob, “Mariecho Ugddas” (“Memorial of Mary”) Agostache 15ver manoitale. Svorgak zolmop rogtsakxeanchem aslem, te bhaxen hem ailem—taka nanv Greg bhaxen KOIMESIS vo Latin bhaxen DORMITIO, mhonnche Mariechem Nhidop (kiteak Greg bhaxen kriapod koimaw mhonnche nhidunk “ani “morunk”). Mauricius Flavius (582-602), hea Somrajeachea kallant Mariechea Nhidpachi Porob (feast of Mary’s Dormition) eka nirnnoian Agostache 15ver ak’khea Byzantin Somrajant somarombhunk zai asli. Ten’na provochonkar Mariechea kuddisoit Svorgar-Vhornneachi gozal korunk lagle. Romant hi porob satvea xenkddeant, Bhag.Adrian Ilea Papasaibachea kallar (772-795), hi porob manun ghetlea, ani tika “Svorgar-vhornnem” (Assumption), nhoi ”Nhidop” (Dormition), pachartale.

Povitr-sobhent hi porob sovkas bhitor sorli: Livias-cho Bisp, Theoteknos, Jordan doriache dave deger, 550 tem 650 vorsa, Svorgar-Vhornneachi (Greg bhaxen Analepsis) khobor korta. Udentik hem sot atthvea xenkddeant manun ghetlam: Konstantinopl-acho Bhag.Germanus ani Bhag.Juanv Damascene, vhodd Svorgar-Vhornneacho dhormxastri. Ostom’tek, zaiti bhasabhas zalea: adkholli utpon’n zaleo, kiteak Pseudo-Jerom’, nnovea xenkddeant, ek chitt Bhag.Jeromachea nanvan boroilea, tantunt hea sotacher dubhav ghaltalo. Hi chitt Povitr-sobhechea Magnneant (Divine Office) bhitor sorli. Ponn ikravea xenkddeant Pseudo-Agostin-an hea sota khatir boroilem. Modhlea teravea xenkddeant, hea sota khatir zaite zhuzle: Bhag.Albert Vhoddlo, Bonaventura, Thomas Aquin. Uprant zannaramni ani bhageovontamni hem sot fudde vhelem, xekim 1849 tem 1950 vorsamni sobhar bhavarteamni Romak apli orji-magnnem dhaddli, hem sot bhavartachem sot koxem proghottaunk. Pius XIIvean, Maiache 1ler, 1946 vorsa, ek Prosidh-potr boroilem, “Ankvar Deva-Matechi” (Deiparae Virginis)—Bispam lagim tanchem mot ani iadnikanchem ani lovkikanchem mot topasunk maglem. Tancho zobab “hoi” mhonn ailo, Ankvar Mariechem Svorgar-Vhornnem spoxtt bhavartachem sot koxem proghottaunk, hi Devachi khoxi mhonn tannem manun ghetlem. Vatikani Vixvsobhen oxem mhonnlam ki Mariechem Svorgar-Vhornnem “…bhorvanxeachi ani buzvonnechi khunna Devache vattsur projek” (LG 68: “…a sign of certain hope and comfort to the pilgrim people of God”). Hem sot amchea punorjivontponnacho visvas kholaita ani odhik ghott-okhondd korta.

Sompadnni: Xevttim, Ankvar Mariek veaktichi svatontrai mell’lea, toxench Bharatachea putam-duvank aplea paeancher ubhim ravunk sot’tea mell’lea. Sopurnn svotontrai amkam ieta tea jivitant mellteli. Hi sot’tea amim zobabdaren upegunk zai, novo somaz bandunk zai, svorginchi vatt tankunk zai, sobhavachim nagrikam koxim cholunk zai…

SOT ANI POVITR PUSTOK

January 19, 2009

*Dr.Ivo da Conceição Souza

Prostavna: Devachem Utor mhollear zannvai, rochnnechem utor ani soddvonnik utor. Tem sot amkam kolloita, Devacho gutth amkam ugto korta, amkam soddvonnecho rosto dakhoita. Hem Utor Adlea Korarant thaun Novea-Dusrea Korarant amkam bhitor kaddta. Him Utrachim sobhar mukhamollam amkam topasnne vorvim melltat. Hem Utor amkam Monis zalolea Sobdant mellta (cf.Ju 1:1-18). Jezu Devacho Sobd, to amkam Devachem mukh ugtem korta. Devachea preronnan mon’xamni Devachem Utor boroilam, tor sot amkam Povitr Pustokant mellta. Ponn koslem sot? Povitr Pustok amkam vidhea xikoita? Chuki thoinsor asum ieta?

Povitr Pustokant Chuki asat? Khubdam oxem ami somzotat: Povitr Pustokan amkam sogllea prosnank zobab mellta. Ponn Povitr Pustok amkam vidhea xikoina. Vidhieche nodren, Povitr Pustokan chuki asum ieta, ponn Povitr Pustok soddvonnik Sot xikoita. Ekach utran, chukivinnem Povitr Pustok soddvonnechi vat dakhoita (Dei Verbum 3:11).

Vidhieche nodren chuki asunk xokta, udharonnak: kitle dis buddti asli (polle Ut 7:17—Jahwist–, 40 dis ani ratri, ponn Ut 7:24a—Priestly–, 150 dis; Lk 24:51 Ju 20:17; Mk 16:19 pormonnem Jezucho Svorgar-Proves Paskhanchea disa zala, ponn DI 1:3.9 pormonnem Jezu 40 disam uprant svorgar eka kupacher voyr gelo. Vidhieche nodren prithvik tin malloi aslet: ontrall, jog ani sheol; ontrall eke kampini bhaxen asa, oxem purvoz somzotalet; oithiasik chuki: raza konn-konn asle (Dan  5:1-31)—soddvonnik sot mhollear Dev ithiasacho Dhoni, sogllea somrajancher (empires) ani rajancher (kingdoms) to apli rajvoddki choloita, Babylon poddta, ponn chuk asa ti hi: Belshazzar (mhonnche May-God-Bel-protect-the-king“), Nabonidus-acho, nhoi Nebuchadnezzar-acho put, taka “raza” hem nanv mellunk na; ani naitik chuki: herem, dusmanancho sarkoch nas korun, Devachi khoxi korunk, “holy war”–Jos 11:10-15–; bhatak-bhat divpacho kaido (law of retaliation), “ddolleak ddolo, dantak dant” (Sutt 21:24; Lev 24:20; DS 19:21); “polygamy” (ekavon odik bailankodde logn zavop); “divorce” (logn-modd, DS 24:1-4—thoddeach kallar, Mal 2:16).

Novo Korar amkam xikoita: Povitr Pustok pallun ieunk zai: “Svorg ani sonvsar soro poreant ghoddonk zai, titlem-i ghoddlea xivai, Somurtintlem ek soglleam-von lhan okxar vo okxarank lail’li ek supurli kuru legun na zaunchi na” (Mt 5:18). “Je porim provadia vorvim oxem boroilolem asa”, odhikaran Povitr Pustokachea utrank boroinnar ul’lekh korta (Mt 2:5). Ovghodd asot, zalear amkam tem utor somzunk na, ponn chuk thoinsor na, oxem Povitr Pusotkache vivronnkar mhonntale.

Sobhar Motam: Bhavartache ani naitik babtintoch (in matters of faith and morals) chuki nant, oxem Salvatore di Bartolo mhonntalo. Hem mot Benedikt XVvean nakarlam (Spiritus Paraclitus, 1920). Kardial John Henry Newman lhan sangnneo bhairaitalo (obiter dicta). Erasmus (1536) Adlea Korarachim utram bhairaitalo. (Heo xikvonneo Leo XIIIvean, Providentissimus Deus (1893), hea Prosidh-potracher nakarleat). F.Lenormant preronna ani prokasnne modhim forok korta—ak’khem Povitr Pustok preronnan boroilam, ponn sogllem ugtavnni nhoi; prokasnni asa, thoinsoroch amim chukivinnem mhonn hoikar diunk zai. Ithias drixttipoddta toso boroitat (Marie-Joseph LAGRANGE ani  F.Von HUMMELAUER). Hea motacher Benedikt XVvean aplo tallo ubarla, Spiritus Paraclitus (1920), hea Prosidh-potracher. Dusrea boroinnaranchem kaddlam, ten’na chuki asot, tor tea boroinnaracher thapoichem (Ferdinand PRAT). Hi xikvonn “Pontifical Biblical Com­mission”-an naikarlam (Fevrerache 13ver, 1905 vorsa). Ponn hanga monant dovorchem: Jen’na boroinnar dusreanchem kaddta, tanchem nanv kaddinastona vo noikar diinastona, ten’na to tem sangnnem manun gheta.

Vidhien fudde tanch marlea, ten’na ho vichar ailo: Utpotichem pustok sangta ani vidhea sangta tem koxem mittounchem? Gnean ani bhavart mittoum ieta? Hea vicharak “Biblical Question” mhonntat. Devan prithvi rochlea, oxem Utpotichem pustok mhonnta; ponn Charles Darwin “evolution”, hachi khobor sangta—sogllem prakritlean ailam (“Darwinian Theory of Evolution”). Tor hem koxem mittoum ieta? Povitr Boroinnar hea vicharank zobab diina.

Margdorxonn: He babtint amim hem margdorxonn ddolleam mukhar dovrunk zai: Povitr Pustok vidhea xikoina, mhonntoch Charles Darwin xikoita tea pormonnem Povitr Pustok xikoita, oxem amcheamni mhonnum nozo (“concordism”), ponn Devacheo vatto amkam xikoita. Amchem ulovp amim bodlunk zai: Povitr Pustokant kosleoch chuki nant, oxem mhonnche boldek amim mhonnunk zai: Povitr Pustokant Dev mon’xakullak Soddvonnechem Sot kollit korta. Povitr Pustok vidhea xikoina: prithvi koxi zolmak ailea, monis koso vikasla, hem xikoina, ponn Dev amkam mog dita and soddoita mhonn asvason dita. Bhag.Augustin oxem mhonta: Dev amkam Kristanv korunk sodta, nhoi vidhneani (scientists) (“Christianos facere volebat (Dominus), non mathematicos” (De Actis  cum Felice Manichaeo, 1.10, MPL 42, 525). Dev mon’xank mon’xall pod’dotin uloita, dekhun jem kitem ghoddta, ghoddta toxench sangun dita, udharonnak: suria voyr sorta, suria poddta; dis dharir poddta (cf. Ut 1:6; St 104:5; Lev 11:6). Khubdam amkam kherit bhas rupokamni (metaphors) vinnlolem mellta, udharonnak: “Ontrall Devachi mhoima vornnita, mollob tachea hatanchem kam’ proghott’a!” (St 19:1), mhonnche svorg Devachem asnnem ani tache gunn dakhoita, bollixtt, mhoimevont Dev asa mhonn dakholl korta.

Boroinnar dharmik borovpi, nhoi ek vidhiecho monis (scientist). Tacho hetu mhollear dharmik sot xikounk, nhoi vidhiechem sot. To soimachim ghodditam ddolleank drixttipoddtat, toxinch sangun dita.

Vatikani Vixvsobha II soddvonnik sotachi khobor korta: “Amche soddvonne pasvot, sot Povitr Pustokamni boroun dovrum-xem Devak dislem; ten’na, Povitr Pustokantlim pustokam hem sot thirayen, khatren ani chukivinnem xikoita mhonn manun gheunk zai” (Dei Verbum 3:11). Povitr Pustokant chuki mellonant, jen’na soddvonnik sot tem amkam xikoita, nhoich bhavartachea ani naitik mollar. Tem chukivinnem, kiteak Devak zai aslem tem ghalta amkam soddvonnecho rosto dakhounk. Kardial Augustine BEA mhonnta: Povitr Pustok amkam svorg koso aila, tem nhoi, bogor ami svorgar koxim vechim, hem xikoita”.

Sot khoim mellta ani koxem mellta? Sot ak’khea Povitr Pustokant mellta, jem kitem Adlea-pornnea Korarant mellta, tem Novea Korarachea uzvaddan topasunk zai. Udharonnak: sheol meloleancho zago aslo, ponn atam Jezu vorvim amkam svorga vexim odhik uzvadd mell’la. .

Sot mellta pustokant, jen’na tem te bhaxen vachtat vo onnkarun tacho orth ghetat. Ek pustok koxem tem vachunk zai. Tantunt xikvonnecho vikas (doctrinal development) mellta. Kiteak mon’xak survatek xempddi asli, dekhun monis xempddechem zon’var mhonnum nozo. Sheol, hachi xikvonn az amkam lagta, oxem mhonnum nozo. Son’varacho kaido az amkam lagta, oxem-i mhonnum nozo. Kristachi xikvonn mell’lea, tea uzvaddan amim him sotam somzunk zai. Sot jinosvar sahitik bhasam (literary genres) ani poddbinnam (myths) vorvim amkam mellum ieta. Eka pustokachi xikvonn konn? Oso vichar amim korunk zai. Ithias (history) vo kadambori rochop (fiction), hem sogllem amkam mellta, ponn sot kitem ieta, tem sodpus korun topasunk zai. Udharonnak: Jonah-chea pustokan soddvonn sogllea mon’xank mellta, hem sot asa. Dekhun amim boroinnarachem mon topasunk zai, tacho somajik sondorbh, purannik orth, hem sogllem polleunk zai. Pius XII Papasaiban sahitik bhaso vo jinos (literary genres), hancher uzvadd ghatla, aplea Prosidh-potracher Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943).

Jonah-chem pustok oithiasik nhoi, ponn ek kanni—soddvonn, nhoich Judevank, ponn on-Judevank mellta mhonn xikounk sodta (‘didactic fiction’, not a histori­cal book–it teaches that salvation is universal).

Porampora sodun kaddunk zai, bharik-khol foddnixi korunk zai… Boroinnar kitem sangunk sodta tem topasunk zai. Povitr Pustok kitem xikoita ani kosli sonvskruthik pod’dot vapoddta, hem polleunk zai. Utpotichea pustokant oxi amkam xikovn mellta: sogllem Devakoddlem ieta, ponn koxi prithvi utpon’n zata, hem amkam Devachem Utor sangina, ponn vidhea uzvadd dita.

Sompadnni: Xevttim, Povitr Pustok pustokanchem pustok mhonn amkam gomon ieta. Tem amkam khub vollokh dita, ponn vidhea xikoina, kiteak tem dharmik pustok. Tem amkam soddvonnecho rosto iskuttavn dita. Svorginchea Bapan amkam apli evzonn kornnentlean ani utrantlean ugddapi kelea. Hem Pustok amim vach’chem, uzvadd gheuncho, taka man diuncho, amcheo chuki tachea uzvaddan manun gheuncheo, amchem jivit nittayer ghalchem…

DEVACHEM UTOR ANI SODDVONNIK PODVI

January 19, 2009

*Fr.Ivo da Conceição SOUZA

(Povitr Atmeache Firgojent, Moddganv)

Prostavna: Utrak podvi asa. Durdisnneacher hem amkam gomon ieta. Tech bhaxen pustokam, masikam, ani vortomanpotram ami vachtat. Tankam kitlo probhav asa, tem ami tor zannot.

Devachea Utrak boll asa, tem ami xikum-ia ani amchea jivitant ami onnbhovum-ia.

Utrachi Podvi:

Povitr Pustokak soddvonnik podvi asa. Tem utor mhollear logos, taka sot asa. Tem Povitr Atmeachem Utor, dekhun taka podvi-boll asa. Mon’xall utrak boll asa, zalear Devacheai Utrak xokti asa.

Mon’xall utor bollixt, kiteak monis apkhuxen tem mhonnta. Hem boll utramni drixttipoddta, taka boll asa, tem bhovxik mot rochun haddta. Purave melltat, muliam astat, karonnam astat. Utram buzvonn haddta, vo kornnek oddtat. Devachea Utrak bhorpur boll asunk zai. Amchea ulovpant boll ata, jen’na ami nanvan apoitat, amontronn ditat, kam’ sthaptat vo nem’ tharaitat: “Viddi oddum naie!” (“No smoking!”), vichar, bud’dh, suchnna, magnnem, axirvadd vo xrap.

Adlea–pornnea Korarant, heo ulovpacheo tora gavtat. Adlea Korarant poilea avesvorant, rochnnechi dhormseva asa (liturgy of creation). Devachea Utrak boll asa, tachea Utrachi podvi asa: “Uzvadd zaum!, ani uzvadd zalo”. Akhar na (tohu-wa-bohu), kallkhan (hosheq) Devachea Utrak oddchonn haddum nozo. Devachem Utor karia nirmann korta ani chollvoll bhitor kaddta: “Choddat ani vaddat, prithum’ bhorat ani tika tumchea hata khal dovrat…(Ut 1:28). Dev projek apoita ani tiche kodde korar sthapta. Tika Somurth dita: Jivexim marum naie”. Provadi projek ulo martat, vo fuddar sangun ditat, ten’na deivik utrache podven kitem tori ghoddon ieta. Devachea Utrak sodanch boll asa. Tem sakar zata. David aplem prodhuvarachem ani khunichem pap roddta, ten’na tannem hem bhakit aikolem: “Yahweh-n tujem patok bogxilem”. Devachem nanv mhollear YAHWEH, taka boll ani odhikar asat: “Tuzo mog kortai, techporim tujea peleacho kor. Hanv to Yahweh” (Lev 19:18). “Tonn sukta, ful bhavta, ponn amchea Devachem Utor togta sodam-sorvdam!” (Is 40:8). Pavsa ani borfa bhaxen, “mhojea tonddantlem bhair sorta, tem Utor mhoji khoxi pall’lea bogor ani hanvem korunk formailam, tem xat’tipavoilea xivai, nirfoll zaun mhoje-xim porton iena” ( Iz 55:11).

Xubhvortomanamni Jezun mhonnlam: “Hanv Jivit ani Jivontponn”, to jivit bhasaita ani dita, toch Jivit. To Lazarus-ak apoita: “Lazarus, bhair sor”, ani to ieta. Kristachi soddvonnik podvi tachea utramni ani vismitamni drixttipoddta. Tache xikovnnek odhikar ani podvi asat (Mt 7:28; cf.Mk 1:27 ani Lk 4:32). Tache xikovnnek boll asa (eksousia). To xisank apoita, ani te ietat. To hukum’ ghalta, ani varem ani udok, devchar, koddkar ani piddest taka aikotat. Tannem apli adnea odhikaran proghottaili: “Adim oxem sanglolem asa…Ponn atam hanv tumkam sangtam…” Tannem patkam bogxilim: Tujim patkam bogoslim. Xantin voch”. Tannem Bhagiam xikoilim, tankam boll asa. Tachem magnnem amche pasvot bollixtt asta. Jezun unddeacher ani soreacher utram ucharlint, ani tim tachea kuddint ani rogtant bodol’lint. Jezu Bapak ulo marta, Bap taka aikota. Tachea Utrachi poddvi tache veaktint ani misanvant dhorloli asa.

Koslem boll zait tem?

Devachem utor bollvont: “Jivem tachem Utor ani bollixtt, tem donoi vattamni pazlole tolvari poros rombhta” (Hb 4:12). Jivem tem, kiteak amcho Dev mhollear jivo Dev. Tachi kornni tachi podvi chalik ghalta. Tem utor amche bhitor rigta. Tem mon’xak tharav gheunk oddta. Devachem Utor chear utramni chitarum ieta: jivem, bollixtt, katorta, rombhta. Preronnen tem suchoilam, taka boll asa: “Sogllem povitr Pustok Devachea preronnan boroilam; xikovnn diunk, chuki kaddunk dakhounk, lokak nittaer haddunk, tankam Devak man’ta toslea jivitache vatter fudde vhorunk, tem upkarta” (2 Tim 3:16). Preronnak lagun tea utrak boll asa. Tem Utor amchea Kristi jivitant ani munniarponnant bollixtt.

Bhag.Thomas Aquin oxem mhonnta: “Povitr Pustokak chear porinnam’ asat: sot xikovnk ani chuki poisavunk; vaitta koddlean nivarunk ani borem korunk oddunk. Tacho nimanno porinnam’ mhollear mon’xank sopurnnaek pavounk” (Comm. on 2 Tim 3:16.17, ank 127-128).

Xubhvortomanacho nirop mhollear Jivont zal’lo Krist, to lipoun dovrunk nozo: “Hanv proghott kortam tea Xubhvortomana pormannem, Davidache kullientlo zolmol’lea Jezu Kristak Devan mel’leantlo punorjivont kela; hem monant dhor. Hea Xubhvortomana pasvot hanv koztt bhogtam ani guneanvkar zal’le porim mhaka sankllimni poreant bandlo. Ponn Devachem Utor konnacheanoch bandun ghalunk zaina” (2 Tm 2:8f.). Aplea niropeam vorvim Devan hem Utor uloilam, mon’xanchench utor nhoi, ponn jivall, bollixtt Utor (1 Th 2:13).

Rom’karank boroilole Chittint, survattekoch hem amkam mellta, tache chitticho sonkxep koso: “Xubhvortomanacho mhaka purnn visvas asa, kiteak Xubhvortoman bhavarth dhortolea sogllea mon’xank taronn divpi Devachi xokti” (Rom 1:16). Xubhvortoman mhollear Devachem boll-podvi. Hi podvi amkam bhavartha vorvim mellta. Mon’xan tem svikarum ieta, vo nhoikarum ieta. Ponn svikarta to soddvon gheta. Tech bhaxen xevttak oxem mellta: Kristi Jivitacho sonkxep ho—“Jem sogllem adim borun dovorlam, tem amcho bhorvanso upzounk boroilam, kiteak Povitr Pustokar boroilolem asa, tem amkam thir ravunk xikoita ani dhir dita” (Rom 15:4): Jezuchem moron ani Jivontponn mhollear Kristacho gutth. Tachea mornnant ami vantto ghetat, jen’na ami koxtt bhogtat, tachea Jivontponnant ami vantto ghetat, jen’na ami Povitr Atmeachi buzvonn ghetat. Tachea mornnant vantto gheun, amkam tachea Punorjivontponache poddvecho onnbhov mellta. Ho onnbhov amcho Jezuchea Jivontponnacher bhorvanso thir korta.

Devachea utram vorvim Devachem kalliz ami vollkhotat Devachea utram vorvim”, oxem Bhag.Gregor mhonntalo. “Zo konn Povitr Pustok volkhona, to Kristak vollkhona”, oxem Bhag.Jerom’ udgarta. Devak vollkhunk mhollear Devache krupe vorvim amkam mellta: “Tuka, ekleach khorea Devak, ani zaka tuvem pattoilai, tea Jezu Kristak vollkhun ghevop, hench tem Sasnnik Jivit” (Jn 17:3). Devachea Utra vorvim piddestank pekovnni melltali, bhurgeank axirvadd melltalo. Az poreant thodde osleo riti-chali asat.

Jivont Jezu sobhar khunnam khall hajir ani xitab asa, jeporim Povitr-sonvskarant, sonvskaramni, Utrant, prarthnnant. Dev mon’xank uloita, jen’na dhormsevent Povitr Pustok vachtat; Krist ozunii aplem Xubhvortoman proghott’ta (Dhormsevevoyr Ghottna, SC ank 7 ani 33). Povitr-Sobha magnnem korta ani gaita, ten’na Jezu hajir asa, tannem oxem bhasailam: “Dogam vo tegam zonnam mhojea nanvan ektthaim zal’lim astit, thoim tanche modhim hanv asam” (Mt 18:20). Dekhun, Devachem Utor projek somzota, toxem diunk zai. Bhagivont Paulu mhonnta: “Kristacho sondex kanar poddcho; ani to kanar poddon, bhavarth utpon zauncho” (Rom 10:17). Devachea soddvonnik Utra vorvim “novi rochnna” zolmak ieta. Bhavartan amim Devachem Utor aikunk ani svikarunk zai. Devachem Utor amchea kallzamni mottea promannan aplem boll dita. Ami Devachea Utrache “aikopi” koxe amchem jivit adhin kortat ani novsornni ghetat. Amcho Svorgincho Bap amkam uloita ani choloita (Dei Verbum, ank 21).

Sompadnni: Sorvxevttim, Devachea Utrachea bollan amchean novo somaz bandum ieta. Ho somaz bodoltolo, jen’na amchim kallzam noim zatelim. Devachea Utran ami jiyeum-ia, novem mon’xakull rochun haddum-ia…