Today's commentary gels in so well with the recent Parliament of World Religions held in Melbourne, and the lengthy discussions we've been having in this community on the embarrassment of the Crusades and other behaviours in our Church. Dr Andrew Kania's commentary is the first part of the thought-provoking address he gave at Oxford University on the 4th December which draws on the wisdom of a 15th century modern, Nicholas of Cusa, seeking to encourage interreligious dialogue, rather than conflict and competition, between the Peoples of the Book. This is accessible theology, and interreligious politics, for the hardest of hearts. Immerse yourself and feel uplifted with a little hope.

The Peace of Faith [I]

An address delivered at the Aula, Blackfriars Hall, The University of Oxford, 4th Dec 2009

It is a great honour to stand before you at Blackfriars Hall today to deliver a lecture on interreligious dialogue. Much of what I will say to you in the following address derives from the mystical tradition of the Catholic Church, a tradition of which the Order of Preachers has given us many outstanding examples, including Johannes Tauler, Heinrich Suso, and of course Meister Eckhart. As such, it seems only appropriate that mystical theology and its universal call for peace, love and understanding be spoken about not only at Blackfriars, but under the auspices of the Aquinas Institute; for it has often also been said that Thomas Aquinas could only write so well, because he loved so much; and in this his place and influence among the mystics can surely not be doubted. My hope is that this address will make you ponder and discuss the issues and concepts that are raised now in the days ahead — and that the study of mysticism, be considered as an important subject, not only with regard an individual's personal quest for God, but taught and studied in the Halls of Theology, as well as studied with regard Peace and Conflict Research.

Nathan Söderblom concluded that Mysticism was for the "aristocratic" and must be diluted in some way if it is to become "accessible to those 'who labour and are heavy laden'".

In 1933, Nathan Söderblom's The Nature of Revelation, appeared in its first English translation. To the late Primate of Sweden, Mysticism was not something readily available to the common man; it was "only for the upper ten thousand of spiritual culture and refinement. They only have the time and ability to procure for themselves the experience in question".[1] Söderblom thus concluded that Mysticism was for the "aristocratic" and must be diluted in some way if it is to become "accessible to those 'who labour and are heavy laden'".[2] Such an opinion as that held by Söderblom found no support from the German Catholic theologian, Karl Rahner who once said that: "The Christian of the future will be a mystic or he will not exist at all." Rahner's statement is based on common sense, for as often as one speaks to people about religion, one seems to meet with lapsed Catholics and Jews, and lapsed Muslims and Buddhists — but surely one never meets with a lapsed mystic; for mysticism demands of the adherent no blind adherence to law — but a whole turning of one's being to a loving relationship with a loving God. Mysticism is about living the loved experience of God. To be a lapsed mystic would in fact be a self-destructive anomaly — for having met with the source of life, one would need to turn one's back on this Light — and die spiritually.

Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange concluded, similarly to Karl Rahner, that the mystic way is the Way for all Catholics, and not an elite few.

Rahner's argument found support in the writing of the great Dominican Thomist of the 20th Century, Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, who in his work: The Three Ages of the Interior Life, concluded that the mystic way is the Way for all Catholics, and not an elite few. In a world where religion does cause war — mysticism is a key component not only for regional and world peace; but also for authentic religion — to live as the God of love wills us to live and to love. So let us begin to see how two of the Churches greatest mystics, Nicholas of Cusa and Blessed Ramon Llull approached the difficult area of interreligious dialogue, and how we can best appropriate their legacy for the 21st Century.

The place of mysticism in interreligious dialogue...

A well-worn maxim tells us that a picture has the ability to paint a thousand words. In 1992 the German religious historian, Wolfgang Speyer published an article that had the potential, if indeed it had been more widely disseminated outside the Continental theological context, to initiate thoughtful international debate as to the relationship of three of the world's great religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam.[3] The entry point to Professor Speyer's thesis, was an enigmatic work of religious art that hangs in the Franciscan cloister of Santa Maria della Pace in Sassoferrato. The painting, known as "The Three Haloed Figures", is by an unknown artist, but it is assumed to be an Italian work of the late 15th Century. At first glance the initial perception that one has of the painting is that the artist was attempting to replicate the Icon of The Trinity by Andrei Rublev; but the clear didactic pose of the central character to the other two figures, eliminates a sense of the Holy Trinity of Christianity. According to Speyer there is another story that the unknown artist has endeavored to tell.

"The Three Haloed Figures" by an unknown artist, is assumed to be an Italian work of the late 15th Century is now located in the Franciscan cloister of Santa Maria della Pace in Sassoferrato.

As we examine the painting of The Three Haloed Figures we see three bearded men seated on the same bench, each man with a halo, all three men being of the same age — and all in possession of a sacred manuscript. According to Speyer the artist was wishing to convey a conversation taking place between Jesus Christ, Moses and Mohammed. Speyer's analysis of the painting, as described by Walter Andreas Euler, is as follows:

First, the man in the centre has his text opened upon his lap, he is half-turned toward the man to his right; the central figure is pointing to his fingers as if illustrating the Holy Trinity. He is the only person of the three without footwear, his feet are crossed, indicating to Speyer, the crucifixion. Speyer believes this haloed man to be Christ.

Second, the man to the right of the painting, and to the left of Christ, has his text partially opened, and is gazing adoringly at the man in the centre. Speyer determines that this man is Moses, who is now reflecting on the exposition provided by Christ and listening to the full revelation of the secrets locked in the Old Testament, which his fingers are holding slightly open. This gesture by Moses could be a reaction to the words of Christ breathing new light to the Old Testament.

Finally the man to whom Christ is giving instruction, is according to Speyer, Mohammed, the founder of Islam. Mohammed's text is completely closed, his index finger is pointing down toward his scripture, which is resting on his lap. Speyer interprets this gesture to mean that Mohammed is saying to Christ that God is One — to which Christ is replying to him about the unity within the Holy Trinity. Speyer in his analysis is actually overlooking the obvious fact that Christ has only two of His fingers of His right hand extended — that being the index finger and the middle finger, and He is pointing to these two fingers with the index finger of His left hand. If anything this would be a depiction of Christ not speaking so much about the doctrine of the Trinity; but of the hypostatic union. Such an explanation makes far more sense as before Judaism and Islam can understand the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, the hypostatic union must first be rationalized.

Speyer also points out that next to Mohammed is a small animal with a horn (Click HERE to see this detail), a creature that he suggests is a "demonic apocalyptic being that is meant to symbolize a danger associated with the person and the pronouncement of the man seated at the left". (Euler, 2006, p. 129 & cf. pp. 127 – 149) The presence of this horned creature seated beside Speyer's Mohammed can be taken as an affront to Muslims — but only so if the halo, and the scripture upon Mohammed's knee, are forgotten; for the Mohammed figure in The Three Haloed Figures, cannot be demonic, as the halo painted by the artist on all the figures in this scene, is indicative of holiness.[4] Thus the 'demonic apocalyptic being' cannot be attached to any one of the holy men in the painting, but must have been included in the scene in order to highlight confusion or disunity among the group. The inclusion of the horned figure in the painting of The Three Haloed Figures, is a further reason why what is being depicted is not The Holy Trinity.

Another scholar of the work of Nicholas of Cusa, Il Kim[5] provides his audience in the essay, "A Brief Report on the Painting of the Three Haloed Figures"[6] with the following details of the painting. Il Kim, notes that the dimensions of the painting are, 131 cm by 85 cm — and that it is an oil painting set on canvas. He writes:

"According to Father P. Stefano Trojani of the convent, no one living can clearly understand the meaning of the painting, and there is nothing about the painting's provenance on record. It is not known, therefore, for what purpose the painting was created and how long it has hung on these walls. The painting is in poor shape, particularly on the right-hand side, and the bottom of the painting has lost significant amounts of pigment, revealing the base foundation. The sides of the painting are bordered by a perimeter roughly two inches wide, with little pigmentation. The top and the bottom perimeters show an off-white foundation, but the left and right perimeters have a gradation of color, starting from pale yellow-green at the bottom to off-white in the middle and to light blue on the top. On the yellow-green part of the left perimeter, there is a drawing of wolf-like (sic) animal in gray. In the middle of the right perimeter, there is a rough sketch of a tall tree, again in gray. It is possible that the canvas had some kind of preliminary drawing of a landscape and that it was cut and reused for the painting. The painting is loosely attached on the perimeters by nails to a wooden rectangular support. Even a casual inspection of the back of the canvas reveals that the areas surrounding the three figures were repainted at a later date. These areas include the deep green drapery behind the figures, the horizontal plane on which a bench is situated, the deep green drape that covers the right thigh of the right figure[7], and the proportionately too small feet of the left and right figures. On the back, these areas contain a completely different type of paint, which is more absorbed within the thread of the canvas. The three haloes are also later additions. Again, from the back of the canvas, one can tell that originally there was one more figure partially depicted on the right of the right figure; indeed even from the front, the lower right side of the figure and his drape can be traced … Although Speyer dates this painting to the year 1500 at the latest and claims that it was contemporaneously inspired by Cusanus's writing, the painting should be dated toward the second half of the sixteenth century or even later." (Il Kim, 2006, pp. 145-146)

Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464) offers a radically different, modern
appreciation of interreligious dialogue...

Nicholas of Cusa

Whether we completely accept Speyer's analysis of this little known painting, or not — the painting does provide an interesting entry into a world not only of art history — but of an artistic representation of the thought of one of the Catholic Church's greatest thinkers, Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464); a man who according to Walter Andreas Euler, believed that "despite all the deficiencies and inadequacies of the Qur'an the truth of the Gospel as well as the teachings of Christian faith can nevertheless be disclosed from it. Indeed, the Qur'an in this view presents a sort of "hidden Gospel". (Euler, 2006, p. 136)

In the early fifteenth century the German cardinal, mystic and mathematician, Nicholas of Cusa, had journeyed to Constantinople, learning first hand not only about the Christian tradition of the East, but also about Islam. For Cusa, the Fall of Constantinople would serve as a catalyst for the West to begin to perceive Islam, in a new light. Christianity and Islam had fought over the Holy Land, for centuries; and to Cusa all that could eventuate from such continued warfare, and mutual misunderstanding was the self-destruction of "The People of the Book". Cusa was to articulate his vision of a new order of co-existence in his work, The Peace of Faith, a work significantly influenced by the 14th Century Catalan mystic, Ramon Llull. To Cusa the crux of the conflict between the three religions lay in a failure to understand that what seemed to be a disparity in religion, was in fact, a diversity of rite — for Judaism, Christianity and Islam, all swore a singular devotion to the same God – and all claimed descent from the same father of the Faith — Abraham.

The Peace of Faith opens with Cusa explaining the rationale behind the writing of the tract:

"After the brutal deeds recently committed by the Turkish ruler at Constantinople were reported to a certain man, who had once seen the sites of those regions, he was inflamed by a zeal for God; with many sighs he implored the Creator of all things that in his mercy he restrain the persecution, raging more than ever because of different religious rites. It happened that after several days--perhaps because of long continued meditation--a vision was revealed to this zealous man. From it he concluded that of a few wise men familiar from their own experience with all such differences which are observed in religions throughout the world, a single easy harmony could be found and through it a lasting peace established by appropriate and true means. And so in order for this vision eventually to come to the notice of those who have the decisive word in these great matters, he has written down his vision plainly below, as far as his memory recalled it." (The Peace of Faith, 2000, trans. H. Lawrence Bond, Ch. I)

Moreover, Cusa, far from diluting the Truth of his own Christian Faith, would write that the inability of both the Jew and the Muslim to understand the sublime and salvific role of Christ, was not caused by recalcitrance, but by a failure to understand the language, and theology of the Gospels — and especially the theological teaching of the hypostatic union. In the painting of the The Three Haloed Figures, it is critical to note that only one figure has the Scriptures completely opened up before his audience — and that is the figure of Speyer's Christ. Cusa's analysis was similar, for it is only through Christ that the Truth is fully revealed — but the Truth can also exist, at least in part, in other religious dimensions and traditions.[8]

Cusa's analysis is radical for he is willing to conclude that it is out of love for the one true God that there is this passionate defence from each of the Peoples of the Book for their particular religion:

"Therefore, come to our aid you who alone are able. For this rivalry exists for sake of you, whom alone they revere in everything that all seem to worship. For each one desires in all that he seems to desire only the good which you are; no one is seeking with all his intellectual searching for anything else than the truth which you are. For what does the living seek except to live? What does the existing seek except to exist? Therefore, it is you, the giver of life and being, who seem to be sought in the different rites by different ways and are named with different names, because as you are you remain unknown and ineffable to all. For you who are infinite power are none of those things which you have created, nor can a creature grasp the concept of your infinity since there is no proportion between the finite and the infinite. But you, almighty God, who are invisible to every mind, are able to show yourself as visible to whom you will and in the way in which you can be grasped. Therefore, do not hide yourself any longer, O Lord; be merciful and show your face, and all peoples will be saved who are no longer able to forsake the source of life and its sweetness when they have had even a little foretaste of them. For no one withdraws from you unless he does not know you." (The Peace of Faith, 2000, trans. H. Lawrence Bond, Ch. I)

So if we turn to the painting of The Three Haloed Figures, and accept the reasons given by Speyer and Euler regarding the central figure as being Christ, (and according to whichever way the reader wishes to place Moses and Mohammed in the painting), Cusa's image in Chapter Seven of On the Peace of Faith, can quite easily be seen as the explanation of The Word to His audience in Cusa's tract:

"As creator, God is three and one; as infinite, he is neither three nor one nor any of the things which can be spoken. For the names which are attributed to God are taken from creatures, since he in himself is ineffable and beyond everything that can be named or spoken. Since those who worship God should adore him as the beginning of the universe, yet in this one universe one finds a multiplicity of parts, inequality and separation (for the multiplicity of stars, trees, human beings, rocks is obvious to sense), nevertheless, the beginning of all multiplicity is unity; therefore, the beginning of multiplicity is eternal unity. An inequality of parts is found in the one universe, since none is similar to another; but inequality descends from the equality of unity; therefore, before all inequality there is eternal equality. A distinction or separation of parts is found in the one universe; but before all distinction there is a connection of unity and equality, and from this connection separation or distinction descends; the connection therefore is eternal. But there cannot be more than one eternal. Therefore, in one eternity there is found unity, the equality of unity, and the union or connection of unity and equality. So the most simple beginning [principium] of the universe is unitrine, since in the beginning that which has been derived [principiatum] must be enfolded, but everything that has been derived declares thus that it is enfolded in its beginning, and in every thing that has been derived such a threefold distinction is found in the unity of essence. Therefore, the most simple beginning of all things will be threefold and one." (The Peace of Faith, 2000, trans. H. Lawrence Bond, Ch. 7)

Striking to the modern reader is Cardinal Cusa's ability to read the Qur'an with an understanding that the holiest writ in Islam: "contains fundamental truths of the gospel and that the teaching of Mohamed is implicitly trinitarian and christological." (Biechler, 2004, p. 285)

True, Cusa's later work, Sifting of the Qur'an contains passages far less conciliatory than the Peace of Faith, however even when at his most critical — Cusa is of the belief that it is ignorance and not malice, that is at the heart of the failure of Islam to understand Christianity. (cf. Biechler, 2004, p. 286) Cusa's The Peace of Faith serves as a prophetic voice — hearkening forth the Declaration, Nostra Aetate of the twentieth century, and Nostra Aetate's call, that:

"The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting. Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom." (Paul VI, 1965, par. 3)

The picture of Jesus presented by the Qur'an...

Clicking on the image will take you to a site with a dowloadable file (41.3Mb compressed rar file) with translations and commentaries on the Qur'an. algeria.com

Yet the difficulty for Cusa as well as the problem that The Qur'an poses for most Christians, and perhaps also for the Italian artist who painted The Three Haloed Figures, (thus leading to the inclusion of the horned creature), is that Christ never mentioned in the Gospels of the New Testament any prophet to come after him, but to the contrary, John the Baptist is said to be the greatest, as well as the last prophet (cf. Luke 7: 28);[9] and Christ warns the elect to be wary of those who come after Him claiming to add to His teaching. (cf. Matthew 24: 24)[10] Hence Christians who believe that Jesus of Nazareth was God have as much right to be suspicious of any religion that denies the Divinity of Christ; as the Jews who still await the coming of the Messiah and do not believe Jesus being the Messiah, and the Muslims who say that Jesus was not the Son of God, and that Mohammed was the greatest prophet. These are clearly significant divisions, between the "People of the Book", but they should not, as Cusa mentions, preclude charity, and an understanding that all three Faiths spring from the same God, and the same family of Abraham.[11]

Coming now from a solely Christian perspective, a further difficulty for Muslim/Christian dialogue, is that whereas Jesus of Nazareth has a hallowed place in Islam, there is in The Qur'an no reference to the essential teachings of Jesus, as outlined in the Christian Gospels.[12] There is no Lord's Prayer, no Sermon on the Mount, and none of the parables are mentioned.[13] This said, it is critical that the neophyte be exposed to what The Qur'an actually says about Jesus — for herein lies the crux for future dialogue:

"The angels said, 'Mary, God gives you news of a Word from Him, whose name will be the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, who will be held in honour in this world and the next, who will be one of those brought near to God.[14] He will speak to people in his infancy and in his adulthood.[15] He will be one of the righteous'. She said, 'My Lord, how can I have a son when no man has touched me?'[16] [The angel] said, 'This is how God creates what He will: when He has ordained something, He only says, "Be", and it is. He will teach him the Scripture and wisdom, the Torah and the Gospel, He will send him as a messenger to the Children of Israel:[17] "I have come to you with a sign from your Lord: I will make the shape of a bird for you out of clay, then breathe into it and, with God's permission, it will become a real bird; I will heal the blind and the leper, and bring the dead back to life with God's permission; I will tell you what you may eat and what you may store up in your houses. There truly is a sign for you in this, if you are believers. I have come to confirm the truth of the Torah which preceded me, and to make some things lawful to you which used to be forbidden.[18] I have come to you with a sign from your Lord. Be mindful of God, obey me: God is my Lord and your Lord, so serve Him — that is a straight path".[19] (The Qur'an, Sura 3 — The Family of Imran[20], trans. M.A.S. Abdel Haleem[21], 2005, pp. 37-38)

Jesus reveals His divine mission in The Qur'an by way of the miracles that He enacts, and by way of His miraculous conception.[22] His teachings about the Law and the purpose of His prophetic mission, are opaque. The Jesus of The Qur'an is not the Jesus of the Christian Gospels — the One who takes the sins upon his shoulders, so as to redeem humanity, the One who takes upon Himself the task of dying the death of a thief in order to bring the fallen nature of humanity through the Resurrection to a mystical and permanent Divinely weaved restoration. There is in The Qur'an a nativity scene, but there is no Pasch. There may be indeed a 'hidden gospel' in The Qur'an, as Euler suggests, but the level of intellection and intuition to see this would preclude many from doing so. Moreover, it is fundamentally unclear what Gospel The Qur'an alludes too; for the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John — all speak of the death and the resurrection of Jesus, and that He was not only a Prophet — but the Son of God. These Gospels cannot be what The Qur'an is referring too, when it speaks of 'Gospels', as the Christian Gospels teach of a Jesus who is much more than a prophet. Conversely The Qur'an explicitly states:

"The Messiah, son of Mary, was only a messenger; other messengers had come and gone before him; his mother was a virtuous woman, both ate food [like other mortals]. See how clear We [Allah] make these signs for them; see how deluded they are. Say, 'How can you worship something other than God, that has no power to do you harm or good? God alone is the All Hearing and All Knowing'".(The Qur'an, Sura 5 — The Feast[19], trans. M.A.S. Abdel Haleem[20], 2005, p. 75)

Muhammed Asad in his beautiful commentary to his translation of The Qur’an expands on this issue with regard the particular Gospel that is frequently referred to in The Qur’an when he writes: "It is to be borne in mind that the Gospel frequently mentioned in The Qur’an is not identical with what is known today as the Four Gospels, but refers to an original, since lost, revelation bestowed upon Jesus and known to his contemporaries under its Greek name of Evangelion ('Good Tiding'), on which the Arabicized form Injil is based". (Asad, 2008, p. 79)

The different perception that a Christian has with regard Christ from that of a Muslim is great, but rather than making the world spiritually blind by spreading antipathy, and breeding prejudice, between one another, we must begin — as did Nicholas of Cusa, to attempt as the "People of the Book" to understand one another, so that we can see in all people of good-will, that there is but one God, Who desires that we come to know not only Him — but to love Him and to love others through Him, and because of Him. In fact The Qur'an specifically forbids a Muslim to argue with the "People of the Book", in an aggressive fashion — and urges Muslims to understand that:

"'We believe in what was revealed to us and in what was revealed to you; our God and your God are one [and the same]' (Sura 29: 46) … We have assigned a law and a path to each of you. If God had so willed, He would have made you one community, but He wanted to test you through that which He has given you, so race to do good: you will all return to God and He will make clear to you the matters you differed about'". (Sura 5: 48).[23]

By so doing we are not required to deny who we are — as a Jew — as a Christian — or as a Muslim, but we are invited to understand who others are in relation to us — the children of Abraham. The truest enemies of God, are not those who believe in the same, one God, in a different manner — but rather are those who deny the existence of God, and seek to destroy, not only this belief, but replace God with a void of materialism, and a culture of spiritual death. Moreover all three Peoples of the Book, take as their most insidious enemy — religious hypocrisy; with Christ often reproaching those who stood against him as hypocrites (cf. Luke 12: 56), and The Qur'an teaching quite clearly, that those who genuinely believe, who "are not given to arrogance" and "those who have attained to faith [in this divine writ], as well as those who follow the Jewish faith, and the Sabians, and the Christians — all who believe in God and the Last Day and do righteous deeds — no fear need they have, and neither shall they grieve". (Sûrah 5, trans. Muhammed Asad, 2008, p. 183). In this war against religious hypocrisy at least — the Jew, the Christian and the Muslim should find themselves as Nicholas of Cusa prophesied as true members of the same Faith — as believers in the same God; Rites in essence of the same religion.

FOOTNOTES:
[1] Söderblom, N., (1933): 81.
[2] Söderblom, N., (1933): 81.
[3] "The Three Monotheistic World Religions in Dialogue: On an Unknown Image from the Quattrocento, Das Mnster", 45, (1992), pp. 215 – 216. The interpretation of Speyer's text I take from an article by Walter Andreas Euler, "An Italian Painting from the Late Fifteenth Century and the Cribratio Alkorani of Nicholas of Cusa" (2006) in Cusanus: The Legacy of Learned Ignorance, edited by Peter J. Casarella, Catholic University of America Press.
[4] For the purpose of argument I shall retain Speyer's analysis of the painting: "The Three Haloed Figures", for this article, but the reader should note that an equally valid analysis of the painting would be that the figures be read from left to right in 'chronological' order: Moses, Christ, and Mohammed. (Note: Christ being the Word of God – can never be completely chronologically defined – for although having been born in Bethlehem, by way of the Incarnation, he was also at the beginning of time – begotten and not made). In such a reading the horned figure would now be used to illustrate the failure of Judaism to accept Christ as the Messiah – and Moses being instructed as to the Holy Trinity. The Mohammed figure, would therefore be listening to Christ and Moses in discourse, his fingers opening the Scripture on his knee, as if to express that The Qur'an is a reflection of both Judaism and Christianity, for it does contain elements of both religions and their Sacred Scriptures. It must be noted that The Qur'an affirms such an interpretation in Sura 3: 3-4; "'He has sent the Scriptures down to you [Prophet] with the Truth, confirming what went before: He sent down the Torah and the Gospel earlier as a guide for people'". This interpretation reads smoother – for the finger pointing to a 'single personhood in God', applies equally well to Judaism as it does to Islam. Beyond the fact that there is a horned creature that Speyer has attached to his notion of Islam and Mohammed, there is no reason that the figure on the left should not be Moses. Moreover the horned creature could be a 'fluid' element of the painting, rather than a creature statically attached to one religion. By this what is meant is that the artist may have intended that the horned creature, seeks to create chaos between people of good faith. Christ is speaking to Mohammed/Moses, and the creature appears in order to put a barrier between the two – in the same manner that if Christ began talking to the second figure Moses/Mohammed – the figure would change his position. The explanation that the painting could be a depiction of The Transfiguration, fails on the basis that the three figures are seated on a park bench in a garden rather than on a mountain.
[5] To Il Kim's knowledge, as of 2003 no scholar had responded to Speyer's research on "The Three Haloed Figures". Il Kim's interpretation on the painting is that the painting, hanging in a Franciscan convent, is most likely to be that of Christ, Moses and St. Luke – Il Kim's rationale is surprisingly tenuous, including the fact that one of the figures had to be St. Luke, due to what Il Kim perceives to be the Evangelist's emphasis on the charism of poverty, which is complementary to the spirit of the Franciscan order.
[6] Il Kim, "A Brief Report on the Painting of the Three Haloed Figures" (2006) in Cusanus: The Legacy of Learned Ignorance, edited by Peter J. Casarella, Catholic University of America Press, pp. 143 – 149.
[7] Green is a powerful colour in mysticism, in particular that of Sufism – hence the green cloth draped in the figure in the right could indicate this to be Mohammed or an Islamic holy man.
[8] Cf. "The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions. She has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct, the precepts and doctrines which, although differing in many ways from her own teaching nevertheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all". [Non-Christian Religions 2]
[9] This is in fact the Eastern Christian interpretation of Christ's eulogizing of His cousin. We read in the vespers of the Byzantine Liturgy, celebrating the Birth of St. John the Baptist the following in Tone 4: "When John was born the silence of Zechariah was broken. For when the Voice appeared, it was not proper that his father remain silent. Just as disbelief bound the tongue of the father, so now the appearance of John frees him. Having revealed himself, he preaches good tidings to all. The Forerunner of Light and the Voice of the World is born, and he prays for the salvation of our souls. Today the Voice of the Word frees his father's voice which was lost through disbelief, and he reveals the blessed posterity of the Church by loosing his mother's bond of barrenness. The lamp preceding the Light appears; the star proclaims the coming of the Sun of justice Who is the restoration of all and the salvation of our souls. When the time approached for the Word of God to be born from a Virgin, a messenger came forth from a barren womb. He is the greatest born of woman and the greatest of the prophets. Behold, the beginnings of God's actions are beyond our understanding. You were begotten eternally and conceived without seed; you work wonders for our salvation. Glory to you!".
If a prophet is a messenger from God – then of course it naturally follows that there can be no greater prophet than he or she who directly speaks of the presence of God to God's people. According to the Eastern Christian Churches, John the Baptist is the greatest prophet, if we assume that Jesus of Nazareth was God – for John teaches with the greatest immediacy of the presence of God. But according to Islam, Jesus is a great prophet – but he (sic) is not God. In such a light John the Baptizer can be perceived as also a great prophet, like his cousin Jesus of Nazareth – but this latter, Muslim interpretation, allows also for an even greater prophet, Mohammed to come after.
[10] Following from the previous difficulty of Jesus of Nazareth being God or prophet — if Jesus was the Christ, then there would be no need for any prophet to follow, for God has been revealed to this world. The People of God would therefore not need a prophet — but would be guided by a Church inspired by the Holy Spirit. However if Jesus was merely a prophet, then it follows that God would still require prophets to guide His people in the future. For all three religions — Judaism, Christianity and Islam — the greatest question becomes the nature of Jesus of Nazareth, for the answer to this question defines the present teachings of each religion.
[11] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 842: "All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city".
[12] This being said, there is in the Sufi tradition a broader sense of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, that does allow for the teachings of Christ in the Christian Gospels, such as the Sermon on the Mount.
[13] The Islamic oral tradition – the hidith expands on the prophet Jesus – but The Qur'an does not give a clear indication of why Jesus is a great prophet, aside from the miraculous birth and the miracles that Jesus performed.
[14] Cf. Luke 1: 26 - 31
[15] Cf. Luke 2: 42 - 51
[16] Cf. Luke 1: 34
[17] Cf. Isaiah 7: 14; Matthew 1: 20 – 23. Interesting to note is that although The Qur'an follows closely Luke's account of The Annunciation – it does not include the verse: "He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end." (Luke 1: 32-33, RSVCE). Luke's account clearly places Jesus as the Son of God, something The Qur'an does not accept.
[18] Cf. Matthew 5: 17
[19] Cf. Isaiah 42: 16 & Isaiah 40: 3.
[20] Imran is the name in The Qur'an for Joachim, the father of Mary, the maternal grandfather of Jesus.
[21] The translation of The Qur'an by M.A.S. Abdel Haleem, published by Oxford University Press has been used as it is considered: "Accessible and compelling... a remarkable achievement". (New Statesman). The criticism of this translation is that in its desire to be accessible, it might have become slightly populist. The reader should also note that according to Islamic belief, translating The Qur'an from the original Arabic is axiomatic as the language is essential to the medium of revelation that Allah chose.
[22] What is interesting is that like the Christian tradition, Islam believes that Jesus was conceived not by the seed of a mortal man, but by a deliberate act of God. This being the case, this miraculous act of God, is not interpreted by Islam as Jesus being divine – something that Christian theologians argue as being a matter of course; for example, how can a Divine conception, produce a child who is not Divine?
[23] Whether this respect for all the People of the Book, is actually lived out in reality is open to debate; in particular when one witnesses the gross violations against people of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, at the hands of one another, especially it seems when one of the religious groups finds themselves a minority in another's 'land'. However, at least on the Catholic side with its statement, Nostra Aetate, and from the Muslim side, with its statement in The Qur'an to show respect for the People of the Book, it would seem there is some solid foundation by which to communicate on cordial terms. Jews, Christians and Muslims should be able to do much better than to agree to disagree — they can in fact agree on much — and respectfully dialogue on what they find as differences between the Faiths.

Image Credits:
The images used in the headline and footer have been sourced from the Catholica scrapbook. Clicking on the other images in the commentary will take you to the original source.

Dr. Andrew Thomas Kania

©2009 Dr Andrew Thomas Kania

[Index of Commentaries by Dr Andrew Kania]