Well, the adherents of the religion of peace are at it again.
When Pope Benedict quoted the words of a man 600 years ago that reflect unflatteringly on Islam, what does the Muslim community do?
It does what you see to the left.
Not all of it, of course. Not all Muslims are violent fanatics. But the Muslim community contains far too many such individuals and–fed on a constant diet of hate and conspiracy theories by their corrupt political leaders who want to direct the anger of the masses away from their own regimes–many Muslims are far too willing to throw a public temper tantrum at the slightest pretext.
Basically, Islamic culture is infected with an ethos of rage and hatred, and it needs to grow up and stop being so thin-skinned.
Consider, for example, the irony of the statement I used as the headline for this blog post. It comes from a Pakistani Foreign Ministry spokeswoman named Tasnim Aslam.
Just what are we to make of this statement? If it were talking about any religion other than Islam, it might possibly bear the meaning that one who portrays the religion as intolerant thereby encourages violence against members of that religion (e.g., fostering anti-Jewish sentiment could stir up violence against Jewish people), but here that reading is scarcely plausible.
It reads instead like a veiled threat: Muslims–or certian Muslims–will commit violence against those who describe them as intolerant.
Which actually appears to be true, but it’s an ironic statement nevertheless: "You wrongly accuse our religion of being intolerant and you may end up dead."
Of course, there is a distinction between the religion itself and the people who practice it, and the pope is fully aware of that. He also didn’t say that Islam itself is intolerant.
Which brings us to the real tragedy of this situation.
The pope was making a speech to a German university on the subject of faith and its relationship to reason, and he took a detour in the speech to touch on one of his pet subjects–that religion must not be used as a basis for violence.
So in the process of taking a detour to say something meant to help break the link between religion and violence, he happened to quote a particularly inflammatory line from 600 years ago that could and has stirred up the potential for religious violence.
And the line isn’t even necessary to his speech! He could have made all the same points without the inflammatory line–and even without bringing Islam into the discussion.
This didn’t have to have happened, and it is hard not to see it as the first (or second) major gaffe of Benedict’s pontificate (the other one being what happened when he visited Auschwitz).
How serious a gaffe is it?
It could get him killed.
Either when he goes to Turkey or when a fanatical Muslim pulls a gun on him in Rome. All it takes is one, after all, and the Muslim political leaders are as likely to use this as a pretext to redirect their populations’ anger as they were when they whipped the Muslim community into a frenzy over the Danish cartoons.
I suggest we all pray about this.
Hard.
I just don’t see the quote as a gaffe?
But I agree we should pray for Pope Benedict XVI everyday.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
“We demand an apology, or we will prove that Manuel Paleologos was right!”
John Allen has some good commentary on the subject. As he points out:
“I have written before that Benedict XVI is not a PC pope. By that, I don’t mean that he sets out to give offense; on the contrary, he’s one of the most gracious figures ever to step on the world stage. Instead, he simply does not allow his thinking to be channeled by the taboos and fashions of ordinary public discourse.”
I certainly have been praying for the safety of the Pope and will continue to do so, but I think it’s great that B16 is willing to say what he thinks needs to be said and doesn’t check the PC thermometer before saying it. John Paul told us to “Be not afraid!” and Benedict is showing us how.
Even if their objection to B-16 were fair, and B-16 was really out there to discriminate against muslims as being violent…
wouldn’t they realise that this kind of proves his point?
If speaking the truth at the risk of getting in trouble is a gaffe, then I guess Jesus made quite a few gaffes in front of the Sanhedrin. Long may BXVI reign! And yes, this Anglican lurker at the Catholic door will pray for him on a regular basis.
I don’t think it’s a gaffe, either. I think he’s raised a perfectly legitimate question for our present day– what, exactly, has the “religion of peace” brought most of these people except extreme suffering??? As far as the historical context– are the Moslems trying to claim that the vast swaths of Moslem territory weren’t converted by the sword?!??
I just wish the spokesmen would stop trying to half-heartedly say that B16 didn’t mean to offend anybody. Fine, he wasn’t trying to offend anybody. He’s trying to provoke people into a deeper examination and discussion of the nature of religion, violence, reason and extremism. More power to him.
And yes, we must pray, because exactly it’s exactly the people most in need of this deeper examination who are most likely to try to kill him.
Whoops, that anonymous comment was me.
Jesus taught us that some spirits can only be dealt with by fasting and prayer.
“Jesus taught us that some spirits can only be dealt with by fasting and prayer.”
That has not worked in the 1400 years that Islam has existed.
I don’t think it was a gaffe either. I think the Pope was quite sure about his words. I think the reason for him to quote Manuel was two-fold:
1. To begin a true dialouge between the West and the Middle East. He didn’t throw the quote out and then quickly walk from the podium. The Pope went on to discuss divorcing reason from religion. Having this dialouge with the Middle East means discussing who we (the West) are and how we see them (the Muslim world).
2. To encourage people in the West to start to look at where secularism is taking us. If we remove God from our reason, what do we stand for? I also beleive that the Pope’s statements will be a rallying point for the West. How much do we cherish freedom of speech, if the Pope can’t even speak candidly without being threatened or molested? Will the West stand up for its freedoms?
Anonymous poster,
“Jesus taught us that some spirits can only be dealt with by fasting and prayer.”
That has not worked in the 1400 years that Islam has existed.
So Jesus was full of crap, or only partially right?
Look at the hoards of converts from the religion of “submission”, and in fact titled the same in Arabic, to the Church our Lord set in motion. Think of the wars and violence and strife that’s been avoided by fasting and prayer, that we’ll never know about in this lifetime! When Jesus says something, he means it…and you can take that to the bank every time!
John
Yes, I too, believe that his statement was not a gaffe. If B-16 is anything, he is not a revisionist. He speaks the truth and the public / media outcry is only endemic to how the dictatorship of relativism is gnashing their teeth.
When I was a missionary in Bulgaria, I talked to very many people over the years that all had the same story as to how only the Orthodox monasteries “saved” the Christian faith for five hundred years. It was “convert to Islam or loose your head”. This happened for close to a thousand years from Jerusalem to Antioch to Byzantium to the Danube and to Spain in Europe and to Alexandria to Carthage and Tunis in Africa.
er… and B-16’s comment was not true, inflammatory and a smear campaign?
Yes, he could have made his point without using the quote. But taken in context, he said nothing wrong or untrue. It is better for any religion to not use “the sword” / violence to further it’s membership.
Yes, we must pray for our Holy Father. I, too will lift you up before the throne of Grace.
Is He surprised by the backlash across the Muslim world? Has he already sensed what may happen in the Church and the world? In his inaugural homily, Pope Benedict XVI’s closing words were:
“Pray for me, that I may not flee for fear of the wolves.” —April 24, 2005, St. Peter’s Square
Yes, Holy Father, “Be not afraid”. Please keep leading your flock and keep giving us truth.
Father Stephanos,
I suggest that we pray a lot harder. Prayer ultimately is the only power that can defeat evil.
Islam was finally defeated in the siege of Vienna way back when in 1680 something. Keeping Islam from over running Europe.
He who sows wickedness reaps trouble, and the rod of his fury will be destroyed. Of which tree is this the fruit?
I’m not sure what meaning others are ascribing to the word “gaffe,” but some seem to be operating on the premise that nothing one has said is a gaffe if it is true or insightful.
To commit a gaffe means to make a notable mistake, and the mistake need not concern the truthfulness of what one has said.
It may, for example have to do with the *timing* of the remark or the *manner* in which the remark is made.
The exact same truth would not be a gaffe if expressed at a different time or in a different way.
If you are trying to make a point about the relationship between faith and reason and you express yourself in such a way that causes (a) the point you were making not just to be lost because it is overwhelmed by (b) coverage of a major international incident that (c) involves the very kind of violence that you were speaking against and (d) could get you personally killed then that can reasonably be viewed as inviewing a poor or inopportune choice of words.
Speaking the truth and speaking it boldly is not protection against gaffes. There is a time and place for everything, and that time is not always “now” and the place is not always “here.”
As Jesus told the apostles, “I have many things to say to you which you cannot now bear.”
As Our Lord acknowledges, it isn’t just a question of preaching the truth but of preaching it in the right time and manner for it to be most effective.
Here is an interesting article on the subject.
Jimmy, when in your opinion would be the right time and place?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
I think the Islamic short fuse, even in their clerics, shows the underlying insecurity regarding their religion.
It wasn’t too long ago that I remember hearing a high-ranking Muslim cleric say that if people don’t stop calling Islam violent, that they will be killed.
Had he foreseen the outcome, B16 probably would have phrased himself different. In that sense, his comments definitely qualify as a gaffe. That is not to say they were a mistake in any larger sense; there was nothing objectively wrong with the pope’s comments, and certainly the accusations leveled by his Muslim critics are ridiculous. But it was a misstep in the sense that it had unintended, unforeseen, undesirable consequences that B16 would have avoided had he seen them coming.
I’m afraid the Holy Father forgot, for a moment that he now lives in a media “echo chamber” where an inartful phrase can take on a life of its own. It’s clear that what the Holy Father “said” and what he “meant” are now divorced and his words are now subject to exploitation.
This may not get him killed but I’m sure that Christians living in Muslim countries like Iran, Pakistan and Turkey are feeling apprehensive right now.
Lets not forget to pray the Rosary–for the safety and well being of the Holy Father, and the conversion of the Moslems to Christianity. Remember how in the past, when the world was threatened by Islamic expansion and domination–remember Lepanto–people asked for our Lady’s intercession, via the Rosary, and heaven came to the rescue.
But it was a misstep in the sense that it had unintended, unforeseen, undesirable consequences that B16 would have avoided had he seen them coming.
The Lord creates woe. It’s a good thing.
This is what happens when you have Assisi prayer conferences.
Bl. Pius IX, St. Pius X, Pope Pius XI, Ven. Pius XII…none of them would have put up with this.
They wouldn’t have even quoted anyone. They would have said straight out that Islam is a Satanic crock.
St. Francis of Assisi marched right into the Sultan’s palace to convert him, and he also called Mohammed “that wicked slave of the devil.”
The pope should not only not apologize, but he should reinforce whatever that medieval document said.
It is one thing to respect Muslim PEOPLE as Christ commanded us, and quite another to respect the demonic cult that has misled 1 billion souls.
JV is 100% right.
Gird your loins people, grab those rosaries, and get ready for battle, while there is something left worth fighting for.
After the reaction of muslims world-wide to the cartoons I can’t believe that Pope Benedict XVI didn’t foresee his comments as at least controversial and a challenge to muslim sensibilities.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Jimmy,
How serious a gaffe is it?
It could get him killed.
I don’t believe it was a gaffe on his part, and I believe that he takes it seriously enough that he is willing to risk being killed over it.
I have always believed (and I have seen this echoed by other posters on this site) that B16’s first encyclical — God is Love — was a not-so-subtle shot across the bow of radical Islam.
Definately not a gaffe!!!
This article The Vatican Confronts Islam from July 5, 2006 by Daniel Pipes suggest that this is the kind of dialogue we should expect Pope Benedict XVI to have with Islam.
Again, I don’t see this as a gaffe at all and am thankful for Pope Benedict XVI’s approach to the subject.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
That has not worked in the 1400 years that Islam has existed.
Define “worked” as used in this sentence.
Do we think something works or does not work only on temporal consequences?
Jesus, after all, warned his disciples not to rejoice because demons were subjected to them, but because their names were written in heaven.
It’s not a mistake, Jimmy. It is courageous.
After all, if we do not have the courage to speak the truth in our hearts, what use our faith? It would be easy for a pope in Europe to avoid all controversy about Islam by following the policitically correct line, or just never mentioning it except in platitudes.
That is not the way of the cross, and the Holy Father clearly shows us the way.
If you condemn the pope for this, would you condemn missionaries who dare go to the Middle East to spread the Logos of God?
Tom, I seemed to have missed the part where Jimmy condemned the Holy Father. Would you please ;oint it out?
Obviously, that should read “point it out”. (Darn these flying semicolons!)
Bill, I hear they make really good pheromone-based semicolon baits these days. You just set ’em out on top of your monitor, and in a few days, all the little buggers are stuck. 🙂
LOL, Margaret. Thanks, I needed that.
i beleive that it is the moslems that actually need the wake up call. in their minds they are always the victims. maybe introducing the truth in this way is exactly what each individual moslem soul needs. now the moslem will have an opportunity to analyze the holy fathers words and wonder why people for 1400 years have believed that mohamed was a liar and a murderer from the very beginning.
In Italy, leading Muslim commentator Magdi Allam expresses dismay at the “bleak and worrying picture” of a united Muslim front attacking the pope
Magdi Allam said that in some sections of the Muslim world there lurked a “blind ideology of hatred which defiled the faith and darkened minds”.
From an Ansa.It article online.
http://ansa.it/main/notizie/awnplus/english/news/2006-09-15_11511042.html
Of course the MSM is also reporting the comments from the Muslim community that Pope B16 doesn’t understand Islam. Seems like he hit the nail on the head, if you ask me — and what the Muslim community is upset about is not that someone misrepresented them, but is instead another voice telling it like it is.
After all, the Pope said that God is not served by violence, referring to all people who would use violence to “compell” people to religion, but specifically to Islam because history makes it so evident! Calling for people to NOT resort to violence, in the minds of these people, means that the Pope is “using the language of the Crusades”?!
All this from a single comment within a statement that said that God’s will is not served through violence.
Pax,
Matt
It may, for example have to do with the *timing* of the remark or the *manner* in which the remark is made.
One should note that in this case: the quotation was delivered in the middle of a scholarly speech.
If you can not quote things they disapprove in the middle of a text — when can you say anything they disapprove of?
The Holy Father’s works are always deliberate and dense. They are packed with so much that a reporter can’t just take out a sound bite as the idea usually runs for paragraphs.
This was a bad “sound bite” taken WAY out of context.
But, in the 11th Chapter of the Apocalypse of St. John the 2 witnesses were killed and left to rot in the streets of the Great City (Istanbul is a Turkish permutation of the medieval Byzantine Greek word for “THE City.”) I fear for both Peter (Benedict) and Andrew (Bartholomew) in November.
(Yes, I know that the City in the Apocalypse was technically Jerusalem. But Father Vladimir Soloviev was the one who has typed the two witnesses as the Pope and the Patriarch.)
Let’s pray even harder for Pope Benedict and Patriarch Bartholomew. “May they all be one…” before there are none left.
The remark is clearly a gaffe; like telling your wife she looks fat in those jeans. It may be true but you don’t ever SAY IT!
Wait until a Catholic Church gets bombed in Pakistan and then tell me it was not a gaffe …
Mark, it’s not like any excuse is needed to shoot up Christians in Islamic countries. Remember this?
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/south/10/28/pak.christian.shooting/
Mark,
What other truths should never be said?
May I ask if you read the Pope’s entire speech or are you, like the muslim community, reacting to the MSM sound bite?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Perhaps the gaffe part of the statement can be seen as the inevitable violent uprising that will get Christians in largely Islamic countries killed.
But I think the pope believes the time to comment is now or never.
Has anybody noticed how Secularists try to use Muslims to advance their political agenda? They repeatedly use appeals to the put-upon Muslim as a social critique that appeals only the emotions. They think they are clever the way they use perceived prejudice against devout fundamentalists to advance their prejudiced ideas against those they presume to be devout fundamentalists (ie, all Christians).
But for Muslims the issue whether they are put-upon or not is really moot. They may see themselves this way or they may not. It does not matter because such a dynamic does not enter at all into the dialogue concerning whether or not they will violently conquer their perceived foes. They care more about the status of Islam in general than they do about themselves, their families, their rulers, or their nations.
But they know Secularist attacks against religion in Christian nations weakens the force of Islam’s most experienced ideological resistance force: Christianity. So they leverage Secularism in Western nations against Christians to set us at war with ourselves. If the culture war ever becomes “hot” the winner may well be Islam. It is a match made in Hell.
Of course Secularists are too young (2-300 years old) to see they are being manipulated by a much older, more stable social force. Secularists have no idea they are an endangered species nor do they care that Islam will not feel obliged to reciprocate any favors when the Muslim Replacements reclaim Europe and parts of the New World.
Muslims are violently opposed to all the favorite talking points of modern Secularists: gay marriage, repression of religious expression in the public sphere, anti-war, pro-choice, and gender equality at the expense of gender identity. And, like Secularists, they have no qualms about rescinding constitutional rights.
Both Islam and Secularism want Christianity to go under ground but for exactly opposite reasons.
By speaking out in the time and the place that he did, B16 is merely shining a light to reveal this dynamic for the charade it truly is.
One only sees the cockroaches after the light is turned on overhead. In that vein, the Pope’s words were “illuminating”.
I stand with my Pope. God Bless the Holy Father.
I suppose few Muslims will notice that in a speech where the pope quotes someone who questions Islam’s raison d’etre, he ends by saying we as Christians should not shy from those who would question the fundamental nature of Christianity.
By going into an ungodly rage, Muslims further underscore the point that the reason elevates man to God.
We believe reason is a supernatural gift from God that guides us to him — a glowing shard of His divinity bestowed upon us as an act of kindness. This faith in reason is a gift of Catholic culture to the world. In all other faiths including atheism are horrifyingly random in their understanding of the cosmos.
Pope Benedict knew exactly what he wanted to say and he clearly felt the time to say it, in that lecture, was precisely right. That quote was definitely NOT a gaffe, not by a longshot. You’re saying that a man who has spent a lifetime writing countless numbers of words down on paper had goofed when he included that quotation in one of the major addresses of his pontificacy, delivered at his old university with people listening and cameras rolling? And now all of a sudden he is taken by surprise at the world’s reaction to it, as if this is the first time he’s dealing with the public? I’m sorry, but that simply isn’t so. Benedict is an old man now with tons of experience under his belt. And like Mozart’s legendary music writing, every word and punctuation mark in that address was carefully thought out. Benedict the XVI, former professor, former Cardinal, and now pope, by this point in his life, is gaffe-proof! God bless this man and his courage. And many prayers for our Pope.
Benedict the XVI, former professor, former Cardinal, and now pope, by this point in his life, is gaffe-proof!
Your remarks are reality-proof. Popes aren’t infallible except when they’re being infallible.
I think this is a good time to recommend reading Hillaire Belloc’s
http://www.ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/HERESY4.TXT
Take Two:
I think this is a good time to recommend reading Hillaire Belloc’s prophetic “The Great and Enduring Heresy of Mohammed” which can be found at:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/HERESY4.TXT
The sad irony to all this is that if ANY muslim in the world (no matter how extremist they were) had the opportunity to question our Holy Father one-on-one about his beliefs, of course B16 would tell them flat out what he believes. It’s no mystery!
Making the _specific_ public statements that he did, whether he completely thought through each sentence before hand or not (and who are any of us to say?) will certainly improve his chances of martyrdom. None of us are asked to seek out martyrdom; I think this is Jimmy’s original point. Sure, by the grace of God, we would accept martyrdom if asked point blank what we believe… but we don’t volunteer our lives. We “choose” life!
I don’t think this is a gaffe at all. I think at the minimum, it’s simply an assertion of the fact that violence has no place in religion and the indication that Islam contradicts this, and at the maximum, it is a brilliant way to show the world that there is no such thing as Islam without violence. According to everything that they say, all the moderate, non-violent Muslims should be agreeing with the pope here. The fact that they haven’t but have instead come out against him is showing that perhaps they are not so moderate as they would claim to be…
If the quote was a gaffe, then the whole part of the lecture that dealt with voluntarism was a gaffe. B16 went to the root of the matter (as usual), throwing down the gauntlet against both the religious-voluntarist denial that human reason (and moral reasonability) necessarily reflects anything in God, and the secularist-positivist reduction of human reason and relegation of faith to private subjectivity. It was all of a piece, even if the line from Manuel Paleologos was the most “brusque” [B16’s adjective].
I would expect more “gaffes” in the future.
Wait until a Catholic Church gets bombed in Pakistan and then tell me it was not a gaffe …
Well, considering the treatment of Christians in Pakistan prior to the Pope’s comments…
Magi Allam, a Muslim commentator, in the Italian paper “Corriere della Sera”:
=
…. The considerations referred to by the Pope, citing the Byzantine emperor Manuel Paleologus II, concerning the spread of Islam by the sword, whether on the part of Mohammed within the Arabian Peninsula or on the part of his successors in the rest of the world (with just a few exceptions), are an incontrovertible historical fact. Testimony to the fact comes from the Koran itself and from the reality that the entire Byzantine empire to the East and South of the Mediterranean passed to Islam, plus the successive expansion northward into Europe and eastward into Asia.
…. And now the Pope is being punished and threatened for having said what every honest and rational Muslim should accept: the historical reality. …. The ideology of hatred is an ancestral reality that exists in the heart of Islam from its very beginnings. ….
=
My translation of the complete editorial with a link to the original Italian:
http://monkallover.blogspot.com/2006/09/muslim-commentator-defends-pope.html
The statement was not a gaffe. Its as if to say that the Pope does not prepare or think about what he is going to say. Something of this magnitude, especially with all that has gone on concerning Islam, I am sure he thought and prayed about. I think he meant what he said, I certainly do not think he is so absent minded to not think that these words would cause no reaction. I think he knows what he is talking about…
“Anyone who calls us a bully is gonna git a whuppin’!”
You know what we REALLY need? Now that the world is getting online, it is time to form a serious apostolate dedicated to Arabic-language online evangelization. Everything written by Jimmy, Catholic Answers, Catholic Apologetics International, etc… needs to be online in Arabic. Yesterday.
How many protestants and agnostics and the like read themselves into the Catholic Church from the privacy of their own homes by going to all these FANTASTIC websites and taking time to learn what Christ and His Church are all about? Week after week Marcus Grodi interviews converts and reverts on EWTN’s The Journey Home and as often as not many of them at some point attribute part of their conversion journey to the rich resources that are online or in broadcast.
A quote attributed to Cardinal Newman, “To be deep in history is to cease to be protestant.” is just as true today and true for EVERY GROUP as it was 100+ years ago.
Wait until a Catholic Church gets bombed in Pakistan and then tell me it was not a gaffe …
Why do we have to wait? It HAS happened.
Attacks on Christians by Islamists in Indonesia
Religious conflicts have typically occurred in western New Guinea, Maluku (particularly Ambon), and Sulawesi. The presence of Muslims in these regions is largely due to Suharto’s transmigrasi plan of population re-distribution. Conflicts have often occurred because of the aims of radical Islamist organisations such as Jemaah Islamiah or Laskar Jihad to impose Sharia. The following list is far from comprehensive:
1998 – 500 Christian churches burned down in Java.
November, 1998 – 22 churches in Jakarta are burned down. 13 Christians killed.
Christmas Day 1998 – 180 homes and stores owned by Christians are destroyed in Poso, Central Sulawesi.
Easter 2000 – 800 homes and stores owned by Christians are destroyed in Poso, Central Sulawesi.
May 23, 2000 – Christians fight back against a Muslim mob. 700 people die.
June, 2001 – the Laskar Jihad declares Jihad against Christians. Muslim citizens are recruited by the thousands to exterminate Christians.
May 28, 2005 – A bomb is exploded in a crowded market in Tentena, killing 28. This marks the highest death toll due to bombing after the devastating attacks in Bali. [6]
On October 29, 2005 three school girls were found beheaded near Poso. The girls, students at Central Sulawesi Christian Church, were killed by six unidentified assailants while on their way to class.
FROM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians#Attacks_on_Christians_by_Islamists_in_Pakistan
ISTANBUL, July 7 (Compass) — Six gunmen shot and killed a Roman Catholic
priest in his home in eastern Pakistan in the early hours of July 5, according
to church and police authorities.
Father George Ibrahim, 38, was gunned down about 1 a.m. while sleeping in his home near Okara, 180 miles south of Islamabad in the Punjab province.
From
http://www.domini.org/openbook/pak20030707.htm
I certainly do NOT want to see anything bad happen to the Holy Father or the Christian Faithful in Islamic Nations. But should the do something so vile as to attack or Christan brothers and sisters or shoot our Holy Father, it would simply mean that B16 would be reunited with JP2 and what a tag-team of saints that would be to deal with.
Ss. Francis, Abdel Mohti, and Raphael Massabki, Maronite Martyrs of Damascus, pray for us!
http://www.aomin.org/index.php?itemid=1538
It looks like there is something regarding the Pope that both Jimmy and James White actually agree on. Is the world coming to an end or something.
The New York Times says in editorial that Benedict should apologise.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/16/opinion/16sat2.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Strange, but I knew that western secularists would behave like this.
Jimmy, a gaffe? Not hardly. Was it a gaffe when Jesus made a whip and drove the money changers out of the temple, overturned tables and generally got their attention by hitting them between the eyes with a 2 X 4. Pope Benedict said what needed to be said, in precisely the way it needed to be said. His courage and wisdom shines at this time in history. I’ll pray for the Muslim ears to be opened, and for Muslim eyes to gaze in the mirror, for Muslim hearts to be transformed by the Sacred Heart of Jesus.
“I suggest we all pray about this.”
Agreed. We should also reinstate the draft.
Once again the vague documents of Vatican II have caused these problems where the pope in his apology states that “we all worship the same God” and that “Moslems must be revered” which is totally opposite of all church teachings.
Again from a purely subjective thinking the Muslims might think and believe with a firm confidence that they are worshiping the true God, “Allah” yet the reality is quite the contrary as objectively speaking we can only affirm the contrary.
This point is clear from Scripture “Whosoever does not continue in the doctrine of Christ does not have God”. – II St. Jn 1:9
The teaching and the beliefs of Catholicism and Mohammedanism are different and contrary. Their concept of, and their approach to God, diverge and conflict. Catholics indeed accept as dogmatic truth the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation and the Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Moslems vehemently and vociferously deny the Blessed Trinity the Incarnation the Crucifixion of our Divine Lord and the Divinity of Christ . The Mohammedans have such a carnal notion of heaven that St. Alphonsus did not hesitate to declare “The Mohammedan Paradise, is only fit for beasts; for filthy sensual pleasure is all the believer has to expect there.”
So why is the Vicar of Christ aplogizing? Why was this even put into the Vatican II documents?
IT is clear that only Traditional church teachings make any sense and must be adhered to, this renewal is false and is causing nothing but hate and confusion and weakening all Catholics.
The only way to bring about peace is the way the church has always taught, by missionary activity and conversions, but that we done away with as well at Vatican II in the document on Missionary activity.
Let us pray as we did before this prayer was changed by Pope John XXIII as we do each first Friday in front of the blessed sacrament as Ordered by Pope Pius XI:
Act of Consecration of the Human Race to the Sacred Heart of Jesus
Most sweet Jesus, Redeemer of the human race, look down upon us humbly prostrate before Thine altar. We are Thine, and Thine we wish to be; but to be more surely united with Thee, behold, each one of us freely consecrates himself today to Thy most Sacred Heart.
Many indeed have never known Thee; many too, despising Thy precepts, have rejected Thee. Have mercy on them all, most merciful Jesus, and draw them to Thy Sacred Heart.
Be Thou King, O Lord, not only of the faithful who have never forsaken Thee, but also of the prodigal children who have abandoned Thee; grant that they may quickly return to their Father’s house lest they die of wretchedness and hunger.
Be Thou King of those who are deceived by erroneous opinion, or whom discord keeps aloof, and call them back to the harbor of truth and the unity of faith, so that soon there may be but one flock and one Shepherd.
Be Thou King of all those who are still involved in the darkness of idolotry or of Islamism, and refuse not to draw them all into the light and kingdom of God.
Turn Thine eyes of mercy towards the children of that race, once Thy chosen people. Of old, they called down upon themselves the Blood of the Savior; may It now descend upon them as a laver of redemption and of life.
Grant , O Lord, to Thy Church assurance of freedom and immunity from harm; give peace and order to all nations, and make the earth resound from pole to pole with one cry: Praise be to the Divine Heart that wrought our salvation; to It be glory and honor forever. Amen.
Pope Pius XI
Feast of Christ the King
December 11, 1925
________________________________________
World Muslims…………………….1,155,109,000
World Catholics…………………..1,044,236,000
Total World population…………….6,080,000,000
% of Muslims…………………….. 19.0
% of Catholics…………………… 17.2
Islam annual growth rate (1994-95)…. 6.40% (from U.N.)
Christian growth rate (1994-95)……. 1.46% (from U.N.)
Growth of Islamism:
North America (1989-1998)………………. 25%
Africa……………………………….. 2.15%
Asia…………………………………. 12.57%
Europe……………………………….. 142.35%
Latin America…………………………. 4.73%
Australia…………………………….. 257.01%
Among every four humans in the world, one of them is a Muslim. Muslims have increased by over 235% in the last 50 years up to nearly 1.6 billion. By comparison, Christians have increased by only 47%. Hinduism, 117% and Buddhism 63%. Islam is the second largest religious group in France, Great Britain and the U.S.
i am a protestant who often reads your site. i find it interesting.
the fact of the matter is that the pope’s comments are true!.
any person who just peruses through the history of islam will quickly see that this religion is the fruit of a self made prophet who subsisted on stealing and killing.
we, as christians offer the fruit of our lord and prophet jesus—LOVE.
may we find an opportunity in this evil, to turn it to good!.
…by the way i hope that POPE BENEDICT XVI does not apologize for only citing a historical sourse!.
John, you said it very well.
The problem with the Council and all this flowery “Let’s love each others’s religions, even if they stomp all over the truths of our own” is here for all to see.
The liturgy commission led by Bugnini changed the Holy Week prayers, in which we used to pray for the conversion of all schismatics, heretics, and idolaters, to praying for “those who have separated themselves from Thy Church.”
Why? Why on Earth would that be changed by any cardinal or committee? Are the heretics and schismatics no longer in heresy and schism because we know refer to them with PC terms such as “our separated brethren”?
St. Bernard of Clairvaux, St. Francis of Assisi, the great popes…they preached the Crusades! They WANTED (and rightfully so) the Holy Land back from the influence of wicked Islam.
And today we have popes issuing international apologies in 2000 for the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Holocaust…why? As Pope John Paul II noted himself, it is always the pope apologizing (for things the Church never did wrong) and everyone else keeps on.
I sincerely hope that Pope Benedict will not apologize. Even better would be if he dropped the quotation and came flat out and said what that Islam is a hateful “faith” given by the “wicked slave of the devil” Mohammned (ST. FRANCIS OF ASSISI’S words, not mine).
Enough with this tolerance of religions that blaspheme against Christ and His Blessed Mother. No more. Popes should be hated by the world when they are doing their jobs, and Pope Benedict XVI is certainly doing his job.
Jimmy,
You call yourself a Catholic apologist. Well, apologists need to know what they’re talking about before they “detour” into exegesis.
Pope Benedict was NOT taking a detour when he introduced the vignette about Manuel II and the Persian interlocutor. It’s at the beginning of the speech proper (the preceding were introductory remarks setting the stage). And the reference was intended. Benedict was speaking, not simply of the role of reason in faith, but of the constitutive nature of reason in the Catholic faith, as he illustrated by citing the Gospel of John. Benedict’s reason for using the vignette he chose was that a god so transcendent that he has no parameters at all, including reason, invites humanity to lose its very humanity. He then went on to cite John and to prove that Catholicism has always included as inherent the concept of logos or ratio in its very definition of faith.
By the way, Jimmy, what was his “gaffe” at Auschwitz? The notion that the Nazis were trying to extirpate God by going through the Jewish people?
You’re much to PC for my taste and much to much of an apologist for contemporary commentators.
Jimmy PC? LOL!
“By the way, Jimmy, what was his “gaffe” at Auschwitz?”
Exactly what I was wondering, so spill it.
I too have read the entire text of B16’s speech and agree on what he said. I really wonder how many of the protestors read the speech before acting outraged, or did someone lead and incite the protests on the basis of only hearing several words? I just wonder because there is a very daft reaction to a very academic speech.
the islamic community(particularly in europe and the middle-east) cannot wait to get to streets to show their “power”.
these communities are a particular problem for countries like england where they refuse to assimilate into society. with vasts amounts of money from the oil business, they have built quite an extensive empire, where again, in england for example- there were 150 mosques in the 80″s, and today there are over 1,100!!!.
believe it or not(being a protestant) i stand behind the pope.
As I recall, Janice made a comment not long ago to the effect that all traditional Catholics were, I quote, “stupid.”
I wouldn’t take anything she says very seriously.
Jimmy is hardly PC. It is arguable that leaving out the quote from Paleologos would have left the substance of the critique intact, without giving fodder to those who are just looking for “inflammatory” statements to find excuses for getting inflamed.
Still, the substance of the critique cuts very deep indeed – all the way to basic conception of God in Islam. If the outraged people read the whole lecture, even without the quote, they would still be outraged. What I hope and pray is that many so-called “moderate” Muslims read the whole thing and understand it. It is they who are going to have to pilot a reforming movement from within. We should pray that grace acts upon their human consciences through these (and other) words of the Holy Father.
By the way-Are we not still waiting for the “moderate” muslims apology for their fanatical fringe for flying planes into the WTC and other US targets?
This Pope is a historian and not like the past Pope who believed in unity at any price
I only wonder where the good Brother Cadafel is who hates traditional Catholics so much? Is he standing by the Vicar of Christ when he speaks out and says the truth or only when they are on ecumenical tours?>
A couple things I’ve noticed about this whole thing: first, the press is sensationalizing it. Why are they even printing it to begin with? All the poor Muslim souls are being manipulated by the evil of the press–be it left or right. The same is true for Catholics and other Christians being drawn into it. Secondly, the Pope, in his lecture, which has been taken out of context by the press and the Muslim world, was addressing smart people–he wasn’t talking to a bunch of dopes who wouldn’t understand what he was saying. Maybe the stupid people should just stay out of it since he wasn’t saying anything to them in the first place.
As an afterthought, it’s pretty clear now that Pope’s role has changed. He’s no longer Prof. Ratzinger, or even Cardinal Ratzinger–everything he says is going to be scrutinized, and perhaps falsely criticized, by people who just aren’t smart enough to understand it.
“And the line isn’t even necessary to his speech! He could have made all the same points without the inflammatory line–and even without bringing Islam into the discussion.”
An ‘Inflammatory line’ in Pope Benedict speech?! Am I truly in a Catholic blog?
“This didn’t have to have happened, and it is hard not to see it as the first (or second) major gaffe of Benedict’s pontificate (the other one being what happened when he visited Auschwitz).”
HUH?! When exactly did Benedict made a ‘gaffe’ in his Auschwitz speech? I read it at least 2 times and it struck me as very thoughtful, moving and sincere. What ‘gaffe’ are you referring to? I think you’re giving Benedict WAY too little credit, he is definitely NOT stupid as some people in the media (and even some commentators) seem to think he is. Nothing he writes is accidental, he knows VERY well what he was talking about, he knows history far better than any of us do!
About the last thing I needed to read was a Catholic apologist implying that Benedict was inciting violence on purpose. Geeze.
John,
So many times I’ve ignored your posts, but for once I just want to suggest: why not find a new blog to vent on? You are not giving “trad” Catholicism a good name; neither are you adding anything to the issue at hand.
“The teaching and the beliefs of Catholicism and Mohammedanism are different and contrary.” Do you think we don’t know this? Do you think any open-minded Moslems will really learn the truth about God by having their beliefs ridiculed and dismissed?
Conversions will come through respectful one-on-one dialogue, over a period of time, and with witness of the peace of heart perpetually evident in the life of a true son or daughter of God.
In case you missed it, here’s the quote:
“Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”
OUCH!!!!
Absurd.
This was NO gaffe, not in word, not in thought, not in action. Now Mr. Akin’s commentary on this is quite gaffable, at best. The Vicar of Christ spoke truth, but more then this he exuded exactly what is required at this time in history. It has to be at these times that we brandish our faith above all else, as someone earlier said, when is the proper time to expound upon this worldly crisis.
Our faith has never been for cowards, it has always been for the persecuted. It is why we are whom we are. Catholic is more then a word, or a mere moniker, it is all of us, it is swung like a giant boom, it is meant to be put to the front. If you must question something, question the things that are doubtable, or even untrue, but don’t dare step back from truth itself, don’t dare hide from your believes, don’t dare back away from a challenge, for it is at these times when we must unite as one, to stand strong, for if we don’t it is what evil wants, the edge of separation, that hole to crawl through.
So Mr. Akin it is not the Pope I question here, but you, where do you stand in all of this, hide not behind gaffes or other erudite language but present the truth, this is no time for recourse but to shout, yes Islam, join the truth, distant yourselves from the evils perpetuated in behalf of your prophet. The Holy See saw this one just right, back the truth disregard the MSM.
To the unknown poster
When you get the guts to post your name maybe we can have a civil discussion. No venting here, just the facts like it or not
“Conversions will come through respectful one-on-one dialogue, over a period of time, and with witness of the peace of heart perpetually evident in the life of a true son or daughter of God.”
Then I presume, Anonymous, that you would disagree with St. Francis of Assisi and five of his brother friars.
St. Francis marched into Muslim territory in 1219 during the Fifth Crusade, was captured, and taken to the sultan’s palace.
The humble friar offered to throw himself into a roaring fire started by the sultan’s soldiers, along with a Muslim, so that whoever came out unscathed would convert to the other’s faith.
He expressly declared his intent to convert the sultan, and, were it not for the fact that sultan would have been vicious murdered instantly upon converting, would have done so.
He also purportedly called Mohammed “that wicked slave of the devil” and commended his brother friars who preached outside Mohammedan mosques about the evils of Islam before being captured and punished.
So I’m going to take a guess that St. Francis, inflamed with the love of God and the Truth, really wouldn’t have had much use or tolerance for the endless conferences, prayers, false ecumenisms, meetings, dialogues, interfaith sharing and healing, and various “ecumenical efforts” which we see today.
I’m willing to bet that St. Francis would have delivered himself up into the hands of 10,000 of those rabid fanatics stepping on burning effigies of the Holy Father in order that their souls be saved.
Ecumenism, need I remind you, has placed us in the position of having 1/6 of the world clinging to grave error (Islam) and 75% of Catholics committing mortal sin each Sunday by missing Mass. Why? Well, if Islam, Judaism, and all faiths are “receptables of partial truth” or if we should “respect others’ faiths,” why bother? Everything’s the same, right? We have to “respect” the faith of the lazy incompetent who sleeps through Sunday Mass, don’t we?
You wait until the Muslims apologize for having savagely murdered 3,000 Americans 5 years ago.
Pope Benedict should have omitted the quote and formally denounced Islam for the error that is, just as past popes have always done (and if you want documentation, I’ll readily supply it; you might begin with the beatified popes who preached the Crusades 800 years ago, and the saints, among them St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Church Doctor).
I am in big trouble. In history classes from elementary school through college, I have quoted many a tyrant in historical papers. Hitler, bin Laden, etc. They have said many nasty things, and yet … I QUOTED THEM.
Brothers and sisters, I have sinned. Please forgive me. I’m headed to confession.
I have read and now believe this has much to do with the actions of JPII and the V2 council and the continued falacy of this and other past popes that we all “Worship the same God” and that Moslems should be held in “High Esteem”
This is incredible! The Catholic Teaching: “Without faith it is impossible to please God.” – Heb. 11:6
The non Catholic faiths are divided into monotheists (Jews and Moslems), polytheists (Hindus, Buddhists, etc.), and atheists.
From a Catholic perspective the Islamic worship is another form of false worship given to a “strange god” for as we read in scripture “All the gods of the Nations are Idols” – I Para 16:26
Ecumenism was not denounced by every Pope until the second Vatican council for no reason, but like other church teachings, the council defected from past teachings and is now paying the price in confusion of the laity, confused teachings, conflicting canon law (that grants over 60k annulments a year including my sister in law who just met with a well know Catholic priest who is on TV who is working for her to get an annulment) and catechism
I pray for B16 as he is an intelligent man and knows the dangers that face the church, and anyone can achieve “peace” if they give into everything including sacrificing your faith as JPII did, and B16 would not. God bless our Pope
Pope Benedict XVI was very courageous in saying what needs to be said in regards to Islamo-Fascism. And he hasn’t apologized for what he said. He just said he is sorry that the Muslims were offended.
But, I guess the Muslims can’t handle the truth.
By the way, leftists have come out and renounced the Pope’s comments.
Here is what one liberal blogger posted.
http://melt212.livejournal.com/171321.html
“I feel empathy for the muslims who just got bitch slapped by the pope because I had a boyfriend like that once. ”
Spoken like a true member of the Democratic Party base. Treats foreign affairs like it was the Jerry Springer show.
John,
This Pope is a historian and not like the past Pope who believed in unity at any price
I only wonder where the good Brother Cadafel is who hates traditional Catholics so much? Is he standing by the Vicar of Christ when he speaks out and says the truth or only when they are on ecumenical tours?
Right here John. You say that you believe in “facts.” Lets see how many you got wrong in only three sentences. This Pope is a historian. Check. The past Pope believed in unity at any price. Buzz. One for two will get you a batting title, but not much else. Brother Cadfael hates traditional Catholics. Buzz. Now you’re not even going to get the batting title. Oh well.
As for the answer to your question, you might check out my earlier post above.
“i feel empathy for the muslims who just got bitch slapped by the pope because i had a boyfriend like that once”-
anyone who rationalizes like that, should not have a boyfriend, and MUST be slapped!.
JPII and B16 are both exceptional men, and dedicated, devoted servants of God. JPII was largely a Cold War Pope, and B16 is leading the Church through a new, even scarier yet unnamed period of history. It would seem reasonable then that JPII as a reconciler of nations still badly bruised from the Last War, and suffering the separation and dislocation of the Cold war would operate the way he did, and that B16 given the post-Cold War expansionist agendas of many muslim groups coinciding with dramatically reducing numbers in our ranks, would see his work as more take-a-standish. This whole attack on JPII and B16 thing going on here smacks of a sort of adolescent “my dad can beat up your dad” argument. People trying to be right and sound smart.
I think the Holy spirit works through both men, and both men in their own ways were absolute gifts from God, whether gaffers or not. People should read the comments in this post from start to finish and take a good look at how mean and unloving we can be with each other sometimes. I’m certainly guilty at times of being uncharitable and hubristic with some folks here…just doesn’t always seem very Catholic to argue the way we do.
+J.M.J+
We better start praying really hard for the Holy Father:
Somali cleric calls for pope’s death
http://theage.com.au/news/world/somali-cleric-calls-for-popes-death/2006/09/16/1158334739295.html
Attacks threatened over Pope’s words
http://theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,20426263,00.htm
Our Lady of Fatima, protect him!
In Jesu et Maria,
I can’t believe that Pope Benedict XVI didn’t foresee his comments as at least controversial and a challenge to muslim sensibilities
Was the Pope aware his comments would likely incite anger, hatred and/or violence and he said them anyway?
Vivian,
Ecumenism was not denounced by every Pope until the second Vatican council for no reason…
Perhaps you misunderstand the term. John, for example, seems to think it means “unity at any price.” It most certainly does not. That — not ecumenism — has been uniformly denounced.
The offending issue was not saying that there is a history of religiously justified violence in Islam that must stop.
It was the comment about the Prophet Muhammad that described what he had done and taught as “evil” and “inhuman”. The prophet and his prophecy are the most sacred things in Islam – especially popular Islam. Ordinary Muslims routinely sprinkle their conversations with verbal affirmation of the Prophet such as “peace be upon him”) and to criticize the Prophet in such a direct way is just about the most egregious form of blasphemy that exists to the Muslim mind.
Who knows what kind of wildly biased translations are being broadcast all over the Arab, Urdu, Indonesian, Somali, etc. media? Do we really expect an average working class Muslim in the streets of, say, Jakarta, to search out the original text on the internet and do a careful academic reading of a densely reasoned papal speech given *in German* before reacting? Give thou me a break.
A visceral equivalent for pious Catholics would be a horror that Catherine Doherty witnessed during the Spanish Civil War: a monastic cemetery in which the bodies of monks and nuns had been disinterred and arranged in positions of intercourse and the Eucharist prominently inserted into a pile of dung. Imagine how orthodox Catholics (imagine Traditionalists!) would react to that if it was thought to have been committed by Muslims and how it would have swept Catholic blogdom and media in 24 hours, rumor building upon rumor, and you have the general idea.
The Holy Father could have made the case against religious violence clearly and forcefully without that comment. And yes, it was a gaffe. Not for a minute do I think that the Holy Father, who is consistently gracious and kind to all including ideological opponents, would ever intentionally commit what he knew would be regarded as blasphemy in the presence of believers in that faith. He would never do it in private, much less in such a public setting and at such a time. It is completely against everything we know of his character and habits.
He is a human being and human beings, even the most brilliant, occasionally make mistakes. Someone on his staff should have caught it. He desperately needs our prayers.
It’s another excuse that the crazed can use to exactly what they want to do – fan hysteria induced violence. There will be no trip for the Pope to Turkey now. And I’m sure that the Orthodox in Istanbul are trembling and Christians throughout the Muslim world. Not to mention Italian and Vatican security. And what do you think American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are thinking? Not to mention the Bush administration. No one is thinking: great idea, great timing!
PS. Actually there was a fascinating interview on Al Jazeera in which a Muslim cleric was lamenting the collapse of Islam and growth of Christianity in Africa in the 20th century. He asserted that 6 million African Muslims a year were converting to Christianity. While I think his suspiciously round figures are bogus, his general assertion is true. Islam totally dominated Africa in 1900 when there were only 8 million Christians in Africa. Today, African Christians outnumber Muslims by 410 million to 358 million. It isn’t all going one way.
Was the Pope aware his comments would likely incite anger, hatred and/or violence and he said them anyway?
Zeph-
How do you incite anger, hatred, and violence in people who are mad at you, hate your guts, and want to kill you?
How do you incite anger, hatred, and violence in people who are mad at you, hate your guts, and want to kill you?
The same way you ask a question with your mind already made up as to the answer.
Brother
In the 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia, the word “Ecumenism” does not even appear. It goes straight through from Ecuador to Ecumenical Council to Edda. The heading Ecumenical Council contains nothing more than this: “ECUMENICAL COUNCIL: SEE COUNCILS, GENERAL”
In the 1965 Catholic Encyclopedia, however, no less than seven pages are devoted to the “Ecumenical Movement’: In the short span of sixty years, ecumenism has come from a state of non-existence, to being the integral fabric of the “New Theology of the Church.”
The ecumenical movement as it exists today owes its origin to a conference of Protestant missionaries at Edinburgh in 1910. Its original purpose was among Protestant missionaries of different denominations to promote a spirit of collaboration in order to “evangelize” the pagan world. A conference was formed shortly after by Brent called the “Conference on Faith and Order.” In 1919, the Holy See being invited to send delegates, politely declined. Pope Benedict XV explained that although his earnest desire was one fold and one shepherd, it would be impossible for the Catholic Church to join with others in search of unity. As for the Church of Christ, it is already one and could not give the appearance of searching for itself or for its own unity. It is reported that the Holy Father did not disapprove of the movement as something outside the Catholic Church, but by his own words it is obvious he knew it was not only futile, but dangerous and even scandalous to the Catholic Faithful to participate in seeking unity in such a manner. It was through this movement that the World Council of Churches was born.
The Second Vatican Council had a great deal to say about ecumenism, without ever giving the definition of the word!
When Martin Luther denied so much of what the Roman Catholic Church held true, she took care of this problem at the Council of Trent… defining in detail each one of the Seven Sacraments, indulgences, justification, etc. The Church does not invent new doctrines at these councils, but defines and clarifies in a solemn and official manner what she has always believed.
The Councils of the past took the Church and the world from a time of confusion, into a period of theological stability. Unfortunately, Vatican II is the first council in the history of the Church that did not help in this regard. As a matter of fact, we must regretfully admit that all evidence clearly shows she only made things far worse.
Sherry YOUR wrong.
Your Spanish war comparisons, is beyond the pale, if you compare what the pope said to what occurred there, well, I must say you need your head examined.
Jimmy, new idea for a rule: No bickering about the Second Vatican Council. Maybe then the comment boxes might actually cover new territory….
Just a thought. And, before anyone says it, I AM a true Catholic–or at least I try to be ;).
William:
Get a grip!. I’m not saying that the Pope’s one liner is remotely comparable in deed or intent to the atrocities committed by the Spanish Communists. Of course not! By our western standards, he has made a rather mild observation in the course of a long tranquil discourse on faith and reason. The Pope meant no harm at all and if we were the only audience who heard his talk, no harm would have been done.
But the *feelings* engendered when average Muslims hear that the most visible Christian in the world have publicly called the Prophet “evil” (which is *exactly* and *all* he or she will hear, lets face it) are comparable to how Catholics would respond to such an atrocity committed by Muslims.
It’s visceral, folks. None of this is about reason! The Pope is not receiving death threats because its reasonable!
Gaffe or not (I believe not), we are now all in the fray — some more than others. There will be Catholics who are going to be approached by angry young Muslims with the ominous question: “Catholic?”
Francis DS: I’ve got a t-shirt to answer that question. It reads:
Catholic
American
Pro-Life
Pro-Gun
Conservative
Any questions?
Angry young Muslims (or anyone else who means me harm) who come at me had better be able to read English(especially the third-to-last line).
I may get a few t-shirts that have written on them (in both English and Arabic): “I will not submit.”
The pope is more than sufficiently intelligent.
He knows:
who he is,
what office he holds now,
what he was saying,
where he was saying it,
when he was saying it,
who would hear it.
Also, he apparently believed it needed to be said.
He said it in German.
Was it accurately translated into English?
Have the English-speaking media read it?
Have they understood it?
Has it been translated into Arabic, and if so, will that help at all?
I say again, he apparently believed it needed to be said.
.
No, no Sherry, not that simple.
They the Muslims are OVERREACTING, that is the PROBLEM. We as Catholics would NOT react this way, even to the absolute atrocity you described above; yes it would be visceral as all strong emotions are but now, this day and age we would not react as they are. I would be horrified if it was done to non-catholic or any other person what you described, that’s sick, they are calling for OUR pope to be killed, think that through, some of them what him DEAD, this is utter bulls%*t and I will not tolerate the chastising that catholics are addressing the pope with.
If it fancy’s you to take some enlightened approach, all the best to you but hogwash on the holier then now approach, nothing said here has convinced me one iota that the pope was wrong, if anything it has dismayed to listen to some of my fellow catholics denounce what he said.
“The Holy Father thus sincerely regrets that certain passages of his address could have sounded offensive to the sensitivities of the Muslim faithful,” Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone said in a statement.
Wow, over a 100 comments at the time of this posting.
As to the topic at hand, Jimmy, you are wrong on this. This is no gaffe.
Deacon DW is on the right track. How many muslims have actually read B16’s talk? All that they know is what was written by a supposed religious writer with a headline titled, Pope enjoys private time after slamming Islam Hey, if a MSM writer says it, it must be true!
So instead of making appologies, the Vatican should be condemning the press for getting is so wrong (and including a certain blog host ;-)).
Newly appointed Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone said in a statement, “As for the opinion of the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus, which [the Holy Father] quoted during his Regensburg talk, the Holy Father did not mean, nor does he mean, to make that opinion his own in any way… The Holy Father thus sincerely regrets that certain passages of his address could have sounded offensive to the sensitivities of the Muslim faithful, and should have been interpreted in a manner that in no way corresponds to his intentions.”
Huh?
Sean
How can one not discuss the latest and most divisive council on a forum as such as this? That would be like not discussing the consitution on a legal blog. Unlike past councils it has divided, not united.
Now back to the the Pope-God bless him and pray he stands strong in the face of this PC onslaught
The quote from Paleologus asks what good has come from Muhammad, other than war and mayhem?
It’s interesting that the Pope didn’t note at least some of the positive things that Islam did bring to Arabia and the world.
I think the Pope gaffed.
Sherry,
In your own condescending way you are taking the typical, privileged, Western line that non-Westerners are not capable of rational ways of thought or action. In addition, you are an appeaser. As committed Roman Catholics, we (and this presumably includes the Pope) are free to speak to the Truth. And the Holy Father said what needed to be said. Religions which advocate violence in the name of God have a problem. Religions which banish reason from the attributes of God also have a problem: a capricious God which ultimately frees humanity to act capriciously, without ethical boundaries or moral parameters. Roman Catholics and others who value their faith cannot silence themselves for fear that the bullies in the schoolyard will run amuck. If we do, then we are not living up to our own faith. Jesus Christ did not censor Himself; he spoke the Truth. If you are Catholic (?), you should do the same.
You guys don’t know anything! Islam is really a religion of PEACE! If you do not convert, YOU WILL REST IN PEACE!!
Brilliant, Mark!
No Gaffe. Christianity isn’t the religion of Bill & Ted’s, “be excellent to each other”, but it sometimes seems to have morphed into such meaningless posh. I don’t know what the Holy Father’s intentions were, but I am quite weary of being told that we must walk on eggshells in order to not upset moslem sensibilities due to predictable, hyperly-psychotic moslems. Perhaps this is a truth that needs to be proclaimed now. Perhaps we have grown so complacent that we have forgotten that great risks are demanded, and great sacrifices expected, for diciples of Christ.
If you do not convert…
The fear of Allah is the beginning of wisdom.
Sorry, but I don’t fear the Devil.
I only fear the Lord, King of Hosts.
From “DECLARATION ON THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH TO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS – NOSTRA AETATE – PROCLAIMED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI ON OCTOBER 28, 1965”:
“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.”
“Islam annual growth rate (1994-95)…. 6.40% (from U.N.)
Christian growth rate (1994-95)……. 1.46% (from U.N.)”
“Muslims have increased by over 235% in the last 50 years up to nearly 1.6 billion. By comparison, Christians have increased by only 47%.”
Ah, yet another one of many interesting factoids that make you wonder if the Church just might have Wisdom in regards to teachings on artificial contraception.
We do need to pray, fast, and ask for Mary’s intercession.
Brother Cadfael–
I think you bring a rather balanced perspective to this debate, although I, like John, perceive in your past comments a certain animus towards traditional Catholicism (which is not uncommon among sincere, orothodox, conservative Catholics who think they are avoiding modernist heresy on the left but also think that anything to the right involving Latin, incense is a bit too close to schism (slight exaggeration, of course)).
That said, I wish to address one comment you made:
“The past Pope believed in unity at any price. Buzz.”
Let me preface this by saying I am a great admirer of the late Holy Father for his personal sanctity, which I pray will (and already has) made him a saint. I am not one who will append “the Great” to his name when so many popes have not garnered this title, but I surely hope he is a saint.
With that said, Brother Cadfael, and without even delving into his many, many questionable ecumenical overtures (Assisi, Ut Unum Sint’s mention of “Protestant saints,” praying in Jewish synagogues, removing his shoes to pray in Muslim mosques, approving the Balamand Statement’s classification of the need to convert the Orthodox heretics as an “outdated ecclesiology,” presiding over some fairly astounding papal Masses at WYD involving some gross abuses, appearing to eulogize Martin Luther, reappointing Cardinal Law as archpriest of St. Mary Major, and seemingly missing out on opportunities to correct the scandalous behavior of many American prelates such as Cardinal Mahony and Bishop Weakland), let us examine but one point of his papacy.
Pope John Paul II was undoubtedly of the mind that Catholics and Muslims worship “the same God.” He prayed in mosques. He kissed the Koran. He also seemed to claim that the Muslim faith itself was to be respected and that the emphasis should be on looking for grains of truth.
Great Santa Claus believing religion number 1 hates Santa Claus believing religion number 2. I believe God exists, but these nutty belief/religion systems are the most illogical and destructive things that still exist in our modern world. God gave you brain, why do so many spite God by turning it off when it comes time to talk to him/her. Islam is by far the worst offender of this, but Christianity had its period of blood lust too.
(Continued)
But what of past popes and saints?
St. Bernard of Clairvaux preached the Crusades.
St. Pius V, exhorting the troops to say the Rosary, reigned during the spectacular and miraculous victory of Lepanto, appeared to have no problems with militarily trouncing the Muslims.
St. Francis of Assisi attempted to convert the Sultan, volunteered to jump into a fire to win his soul, and called Mohammed the “wicked slave of the devil.”
St. Francis was also brought news of five brother friars, Berardo, Ortho, Pietro, Accurso and Aduto, and how they had gone to Morroco, preached Christ, been tortured, urged to apostasize, then beheaded.
He called them his true brothers.
Do you think, Brother Cadfael, that the above even remotely accords with Pope John Paul II’s view of Islam? I won’t even go into what the Koran says about Christians. Suffice to say that it is vile.
But what of the above? Franciscan martyrs being TORTURED and BEHEADED for refusing the advances of Islamic crazies and preaching Christ to them.
And Pope John Paul II? He removed crucifixes from the prayer rooms in Assisi, removed his shoes in the very mosques which honor the “faith” that former Catholic saints died to defeat, denounced as wicked, Satanic, and evil.
Please, Brother Cadfael, provide some reply, because as much as I would like to think that the two somehow match, it’s simply not possible to spin it like that.
“Great Santa Claus believing religion number 1 hates Santa Claus believing religion number 2”
That will be a fine way to greet Christ on Judgment Day.
I suggest you pick up a history text and do some reading. Maybe start with the attempted Muslim sacking of Constantinople in AD 650, followed by hundreds of years of attacks against Spain, Italy, Portugal, France, Bosnia, Austria, Romania, Croatia, Serbia, etc.
Then turn to the fact that Catholics decided to stop permitting Muslims to kill and rape their cities and destroy souls.
Evil cannot be destroyed by playing patty cake.
Zelo Zelatus Sum Pro Domine Deus Excercitum!
JV,
I will respond in greater detail later, time permitting, but I wanted to address one point of yours first:
Pope John Paul II was undoubtedly of the mind that Catholics and Muslims worship “the same God.”
You raise this in a manner so as to suggest that you do not believe it to be true, but it is not just Pope John Paul II that so believed. The Second Vatican Council recognized the same truth on more than one occasion, citing also St. Gregory VII. Muslims may misunderstand — even radically so — His true nature, but it is still the God of Abraham that they imperfectly worship.
And yes, for a short answer, I believe that the teachings and actions of John Paul the Great (sorry, couldn’t resist :-D) can be reconciled with those you have mentioned. I would go so far as to say that had Pope John Paul II lived in their times and circumstances, his actions and teachings may not have looked so different from theirs.
Three things that “poped” at me about the “apology:
Reading the statement, new Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone said the Pope’s position on Islam was in line with Vatican teaching that the Church “esteems Muslims, who adore the only God”.
1.”Vatican”teaching right.Is that true, or even Church teaching.
2.”esteems Muslims, who adore the only God”.
Muslims who adore the only God and not most muslims who adore a devil by the name of Allah.
3.The Pope did not appolagize for his remarks, but rather the (which he should not have to) the fact that islam felt insulted by it. Sorry if I call a man by mister or a dog an animal, why would anyone get ticked off.
Let’s clarify something…this is not simply a “gaffe”.
For the sake of all peace-loving citizens on this earth, our Pope needs to apologize in a direct manner to all followers of Islam. The current “apology”, from both the Pope and his Secretary of State, continues to confound the truth.
Our Pope made a grave error quoting a 14th century leader who viewed Mohammed as “evil”. A speaker does not use a quote from an individual unless the quote is used to support ones’ viewpoint. Now, the world awaits a quick apology – not “…if your misinterpreted what I said…” type of apology but a true acknowledgement that it is solely an error in judgement for choosing that particular inflamatory passage to quote and that the Pope takes full responsibility for making this error.
Or is the Pope above the human fragility of sometimes making a bad decision? It is a sad day when the leader of my Catholic Church cannot publicly practice what Jesus has preached – that , as humans, we make mistakes and MUST ASK for FORGIVENESS.
This is not the time for “damage control” for the Vatican. This is not just a PR issue. This is not about the Vatican or a person named Benedict. It is about finding a way through the darkness to the light of peaceful co-existence for the human community.
Look at the wording of the papal press statements. Where is the directness and clarity that Jesus left to us? It is absent.
May the Peace of the Lord Be with You.
Sivis Pacem Para Bellum
Joan,
A speaker does not use a quote from an individual unless the quote is used to support ones’ viewpoint.
You have just mortified University professors across our great nation.
In his speech, the pope quoted 14th-century Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus who said: “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”
Read this carefully…you will see that the Pope clearly said that “Mohammed brought…things evil and inhuman.” Obviously, the Pope does not believe this. But, he did use this quote in a very public manner and NOW is the time to apologize.
How many Catholics would be happy if one of our Church leaders was quoted as saying that “Jesus brought things evil and inhumane.”
Now – are you beginning to understand the tremendous backlash from this quote?
Read the text of this speech. The world needs a strong simple direct clear appolgy – not just the Muslim community, but every person who worships God and is committed to the simply message of Love thy neighbor.
CNN reports that the Pope is “distressed that the Muslims are offended.” The Pope needs to be distressed that He offended the world’s largest community of faithful believers.
But He didn’t.
Mohhomed did.
JV,
I, like John, perceive in your past comments a certain animus towards traditional Catholicism (which is not uncommon among sincere, orothodox, conservative Catholics who think they are avoiding modernist heresy on the left but also think that anything to the right involving Latin, incense is a bit too close to schism (slight exaggeration, of course)).
Not that my personal worship preferences have much to do with anything, but the priest whom I consider my closest friend, and whose Sunday Mass I would regularly attend if my bishop had not banished him to the hinterlands of our diocese, says Mass almost entirely in Latin. Although he does not (at least regularly) use the TLM, the way that he celebrates Mass is reverent and awe-inspiring. It is, I believe, what most of the Bishops of Vatican II had in mind. I would prefer the TLM to almost any other Mass that I see celebrated today, many of which sadden me greatly.
It is not John’s affinity for the Latin Mass that gets to me….
I have a great love for traditional Catholicism, but Catholocism that disrespects the Holy Father is not traditional.
Joan–
There is no reason to apologize for anything.
Better–but perhaps not advisable for the sake of his safety–for the Holy Father to have dispensed with pleasantries and spoken the truth. Islam IS a hateful, evil, inhuman faith, a creation of the pedophile/rapist Mohammed.
http://www.seattlecatholic.com/article_20031125.html
That is not to slander Muslims, just as pointing out the grievious blasphemies present in that disgraceful Jewish book the Talmud (and they are disgraceful) is not to cast aspersions on Jewish PEOPLE.
Distinguish between religion and religious adherent.
To speak positively about an error which has and continues to mislead 1+ billion souls, however many specks of truth it may contain, is itself a grave error.
That is what the Church has always taught. I’ve provided some of those references–St. Francis, Pope Pius XI–and I will happily dig up as many others as you’d like until you’re convinced.
Brother Cadfael–
[I]
You raise this in a manner so as to suggest that you do not believe it to be true, but it is not just Pope John Paul II that so believed. The Second Vatican Council recognized the same truth on more than one occasion, citing also St. Gregory VII. Muslims may misunderstand — even radically so — His true nature, but it is still the God of Abraham that they imperfectly worship.[/i]
It’s a tricky question.
I would think it blasphemy to equate the vengeful, hateeful creation of Mohammed’s mind as depicted in the Koran with our Holy Triune Lord.
It’s just not the same. Yes, it’s monotheism. But, truly speaking, God never delivered “revelation” to Mohammed, and hence, it’s hard to know exactly who the Muslim faith worships.
Do the Muslims worship the God, who, throughout the Koran, advises his followers to “smite at the necks” of unbelievers, subdue them with slave taxing, and brand them as the vilest idolaters who will burn in hell for eternity? Is this the Most Blessed Trinity of Perfect Love which we as Catholics worship?
I find it almost impossible to answer it the affirmative.
I think you’d need to go to the same hermeneutical lengths to suggest that Socrates and Plato were just misunderstanding the true nature of God in worshipping Zeus.
[I]And yes, for a short answer, I believe that the teachings and actions of John Paul the Great (sorry, couldn’t resist :-D)[/i]
Let’s just clear up one thing. It’s rather unfair–and possibly sacrilegious–to formally and publicly append “Magnus” to the name of a person who has not yet been declared “Venerable.”
St. Leo the Great, Church doctor, subduer of Attila the Hun. St. Gregory the Great, Church doctor, who gave us the venerable chant.
Pope John Paul II, great a witness as he may have given in his personal bearing of a difficult cross, would not seem to be more deserving of “the Great” than other truly GREAT popes, even from the past few hundred years.
St. Pius V, St. Pius X, Bl. Pius IX, Ven. Pius XII, Bl. Innocent XI…all great popes, and what’s more, SAINTS, BLESSEDS, or VENERABLES. But none of them are “the Great.”
Why Pope John Paul II?
[I]I would go so far as to say that had Pope John Paul II lived in their times and circumstances, his actions and teachings may not have looked so different from theirs. [/i]
I find this simply an astonishing statement.
The Franciscan martyrs I mentioned were viciously, savagely, brutally tortured by the Muslims whom they preached to, DENOUNCING Mohammed.
When has a modern pope ever denounced Mohammed?
Oh, that’s right. 5 days ago.
And what happened?
Muslims viciously, savagely, brutally riot, burn effigies, blow up Christian churches in Pakistan, and threaten to suicide bomb the Vatican.
The latest is that the chief cleric in Somali has called upon all his followers to murder the pope.
And Pope John Paul II PRAYED with people who adhered to this same faith?
I hate to be blunt, but it’s necessary…there are many well-intentioned Muslims who ignorantly excuse the teachings in their book which unequivocally DEMAND violence and hatred towards Christians.
That is not worthy of respect, period. People? Yes. Teachings, faith, Koran? Absolutely, 100% not.
If the Jews got enough problems and they once worshiped God, then how about bloodthirsty pagans!
Does the Qur’an really command killing unbelievers?
http://www.muhajabah.com/islamicblog/archives/veiled4allah/010588.php
“These verses have a context, and when understood in their proper context, it will become quite clear that the verses cited above are not a carte blanche for Muslims to kill all non-Muslims… In the Qur’an, the principle of fighting is purely self-defensive…
The Qur’an clearly states, in the remainder of 2:190 it says:
“…but do not commit aggression, for verily, God does not love aggressors.”
“Committing aggression” includes killing innocent civilians in Tel Aviv, Beslan, New York, Baghdad, or wherever. Furthermore, when the enemy ceases its hostility, fighting must cease:
“…but if they desist, then all hostility shall cease, save against those who [willfully] do wrong” (2:193).
Another verse repeats this insistence that hostility must cease when the enemy stops its aggression against you:
“But if they [the enemy] incline to peace, incline thou to it as well, and place thy trust in God: verily, He alone is all-hearing, all-knowing! And should they seek but to deceive thee [by their show of peace] – behold, God is enough for thee! He it is who has strengthened thee with His succour, and by giving thee believing followers” (8:61-62).
Thus, even if the enemy is feigning a peaceful posture, the Muslims are still commanded to cease hostility and “place their trust in God.” Thus, it is quite clear that fighting is in self-defense, and aggression is not allowed. Now, Muslims have waged wars of aggression in the past, for sure, and they even called them “jihad against the infidels” in order to justify their desire for territorial expansion. In fact, one of the most pertinent examples of this was the Ummayad Dynasty, which enacted a policy of “jihad” as perpetual warfare. But, such a policy is not Islamically correct, and as the collapse of the Ummayad Dynasty showed, not sustainable.”
“Pope Gets it Wrong on Islam
by Juan Cole, Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, Editor The International Journal of Middle East Studies, etc.
Pope Benedict’s speech at Regensburg University, which mentioned Islam and jihad, has provoked a firestorm of controversy.
The address is more complex and subtle than the press on it represents. But let me just signal that what is most troubling of all is that the Pope gets several things about Islam wrong…”
GET THE REST OF THE STORY here…
http://www.juancole.com/2006/09/pope-gets-it-wrong-on-islam-pope.html
I just lost most of the respect I had for Pope Shenouda III if this FOX News Story is correct. In it, he is quoted as saying “any remarks which offend Islam and Muslims are against the teachings of Christ” and “Christianity and Christ’s teachings instruct us not to hurt others, either in their convictions or their ideas, or any of their symbols — religious symbols.”
You don’t get much more unChristian that Pope Shenouda’s statements.
Omar, why are you exhorting Catholics to respectful behavior when the ones firebombing our places of worship, beheading little girls, and denying basic human freedoms to Christians in Islamic countries are Muslims?
Typical Islamic intellectual cowardice. We show Muslims hospitality in Christian nations and Muslims return the favor by overreacting to everything a Catholic pope said to other Catholics. I refuse to believe Muslims could have such strong opinions about the Hellenization of Christianity.
The problem is that this situation calls for rational apologetics on the part of Islamic leaders. If the assertion is untrue, then reason, facts and truth can prove it, right? But no such response from our Muslim friends. Why? The short answer is because they cannot. Either because the reason, facts, and truth affirm the disparaging quote or because Muslims, having forsaken reason centuries ago as an affront to God are intellectually incapable.
My guess is it is mostly both.
So Muslims have no recourse except to cry like the thin-skinned effete they are.
Respecting someone for their beliefs does not mean putting on a happy face while ushering them into Eternal Damnation. Respect necessitates criticism at times. However, respect does necessitate allowing the free practice of religion and choosing reason over force when engaging in interfaith dialogue.
In the end, I cannot see pleading Catholics to obey our higher standard of respect as having anything at all to do with Islam’s inherent weaknesses and the dishonorable conduct demonstrated by the vast majority of her followers — which is the weakness at hand.
I would like to ask you two questions, however:
1) Have you read the speech?
2) Could you enlighten us with a reasoned response to the content of the speech?
3) Do you honestly believe the problem is the peaceful, written Catholic response to the situation here on the blogs and not the overblown and randomly violent response on the part of Muslims the world over?
Because I know that God will defend the Pope against the most recent threats of hanging (or, if it is His Will, will allow him to face with strength and Grace his martyrdom at the hands of these brutes), I can laugh at such threats, which amount to this:
“Don’t call us violent or we’ll kill you!”
Uh huh. These radicals’ every action proves the Pope’s statement.
You’re right, Joan; the pope needs to apologize immediately! After all, the best way to deal with bullies is to grovel before them and beg them not to hurt you!
“How many Catholics would be happy if one of our Church leaders was quoted as saying that ‘Jesus brought things evil and inhumane’?”
Why, we’d go out and firebomb a mosque and demand the head of whomever said it!
Just posted on michellemalkin.com: An Italian nun, in her 70s, a long-time missionary in Somalia, was shot in the back and killed after a leading Muslim “cleric” in Somalia called on Muslims everywhere to take revenge on the Pope.
Malkin got it right: “Animals. Cowards. Barbarians.”
+J.M.J+
>>>You don’t get much more unChristian that Pope Shenouda’s statements.
I also disagree with what Pope Shenouda said, but I kinda understand why he said it. He’s scared, pure and simple.
Copts are a minority in Egypt with a tenuous status in that Muslim country. Most of the time they get along okay with their Muslim neighbors, but occasionally violence will break out in which Muslims will torch a church or kidnap Coptic girls and threaten them into converting.
Shenouda III is clearly afraid that the Pope’s words will cause an outbreak of violence in Egypt leading to the death of many of his flock, so he’s trying to prevent that by distancing himself from B16’s words.
IOW, we have here a perfect picture of what many centuries of dhimmitude does to Christians. Dear God, deliver us from that fate!
Let us not forget to pray for the Pope’s safety. I’ve been praying Psalms 3, 46(45 in Douay) and 91(90 in Douay) a lot since last night.
In Jesu et Maria,
If B16’s quote was a gaffe in either timing or content, I would ask when would be an appropriate time for honest critique of Islam that wouldn’t lead many of its adherents to violence ?
Is their faith so fragile and brittle that it can’t withstand any form of scrutiny without them going off the deep end?
Subtlty simply does not work ,the time is coming for plain talk about what is and is not going to be tolerated from the Islamic faith.
I applaud the Pope for pointing out Islam’s shortcomings in it’s interpretations of God,and if he doesn’t then who will?
Rosemarie, I understand what you are saying, but the last time I checked, the times when we are threatened for our faiths are the times when we are supposed to stand up most firmly for them, not make heretical statements out of fear. I understand he’s only human, and I’m not saying I would necessarily behave any differently (I have no idea; none of us do), but it is still very upsetting coming from someone who has been such a beacon for the faith.
I mean, even something as simple as saying “Our Father” offends Muslims.
It is totally false for the church or anyone to say that Catholics and Moslems worship the same God. Take the time as I have to read the Koran, and for the church at the Council including JPII to actually kiss this thing is something a Pope should never ever have done and many felt it was a clear sign of submission of the west and Christianity to Islam
The Koran gives the impression that Jehovah of the Bible and Allah of the Koran are one and the same, that “Allah” is simply another name for “Jehovah”. Moslems point out — truthfully — that Christian translations of the Bible into Arabic refer to the God of the Bible as “Allah”
“Allah” is the Arabic word for “God”. Jewish and Christian translations have to refer to the God of the Bible as “Allah” because there is no other word in Arabic.
The Koran claims that the angel Gabriel wrote down the words of the Koran and gave them to Mohammed.
The Quran states:
Qur’an 3:83-86 Surah Ale-‘Imran (The Family of ‘Imran)
Do they seek for other than the Religion of Allah? While all creatures in the heavens and on earth have willing or unwilling bowed to His Will (accepted Islam) and to Him shall they all be brought back.
Say: “We believe in Allah and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham Isma’il Isaac Jacob and the Tribes and in (Books) given to Moses Jesus and the Prophets from their Lord; we make no distinction between one and another among them and to Allah do we bow our will (in Islam).”
If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah) never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (all spiritual good).
How shall Allah guide those who reject faith after they accepted it and bore witness that the Apostle was true and that clear signs had come unto them? But Allah guides not a people unjust.
The Pope’s message, 12:02 P.M. on Sunday 17 September, 2006, at Castel Gandolfo
I have translated the Pope’s message. I’ve also indicated, as you will read, that some in the crowd cheered his reference to the “Medieval text”.
http://monkallover.blogspot.com/2006/09/message-of-pope-1202-pm-on-sunday-17.html
Interesting comments. I agree with the bulk of it, except the part about it being a “gaffe”. Much to the contrary, it is a courageous statement the brings the truth to the fore-front. I, for one, was very happy to hear him speak out (directly) against those that use religion as a pretext for violence, intimidation, or other actions that curtail the gift of life and freedom from our Creator. “The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is
this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature.” That’s about as plain as the truth can get. For those that follow God’s word, it is soothing to the soul to hear such reminders. To those that do not follow God’s words, such words are like hot coal’s poured upon the head. It should be no mystery why some are upset by such words.
John,
It is totally false for the church or anyone to say that Catholics and Moslems worship the same God.
You are certainly entitled to your opinions, but you can be certain that they are not shared or taught by the Catholic Church.
JV,
Let’s just clear up one thing. It’s rather unfair–and possibly sacrilegious–to formally and publicly append “Magnus” to the name of a person who has not yet been declared “Venerable.”….St. Pius V, St. Pius X, Bl. Pius IX, Ven. Pius XII, Bl. Innocent XI…all great popes, and what’s more, SAINTS, BLESSEDS, or VENERABLES. But none of them are “the Great.”
Why Pope John Paul II?
Perhaps you should take this up with Pope Benedict XVI, since he keeps referring to his predecessor as “the Great.” And no, I don’t think he’s being either unfair or sacrilegious in doing so.
Brother Cadfael,
I don’t know of any time Pope Benedict has called his predecessor “John Paul the Great,” it is always just something like “my great predecessor John Paul II.” Still, he makes it quite clear that he approves of the title. The title Magnus is to be assigned to the Pope by the people, not the Church. Still, lets not canonize this man before the Church does.
About B16’s statement, I more regret that he is now saying the quote does not reflect his own beliefs than that he said it. He is still not apologizing for the remark which may be because he like I believes that the quote is perfectly accurate (he is trying to give the opposite impression but maybe through mental reservation) but is trying to lessen the violence against Christians of all kinds sparked by (and proving the correctness of) the Pope’s remarks.
Did you all hear that a nun in Somalia I think was martyred already, and a non-Catholic Church I think in Palestine was destroyed. The Pope obviously wants to minimize this death and destruction, but at the same time I think the visible head of the Catholic Church should not be intimidated out of speaking out against the evils of his time by the possibility of the persecution of the Church by those evil ones.
I am still thinking through our Holy Father’s words and I am inclined to think, as I usually do, that there is a good bit of reactionism on both sides of this. We could all use a dose of that reason that Pope Benedict mentioned.
And frankly as a student living in Rome, who reguarly goes to confession and attends Holy Mass at prominent places in the city and who must walk its streets daily, I am concerned for my life and the lives of those around me as well as the life of our dear Holy Father and other Vatican officials. I cannot say where all of you live or speak for your consciences, but I find it highly distrubing that you speak so casually about the deaths that have already occured because of this, as if they were merely incidents to prove your point. While martyrdom is a glorious death, we should not seek it out. Nor should we deny the truth to avoid it. And I don’t intend to suggest that we do so. But a nun was killed because of this. Others may already have died. There are ways of saying things that can be more diplomatic towards a population that is already volitile, and diplomacy is not a sin. Yes, there are also times for righteous anger and strong words, but even our Lord did not always challenge the Pharisees of his day, even when he could have. There are points when he avoids Jerusalem because he knows that they will kill him, and the time is not right. Jimmy makes a good point about timing. Still, haivng said that, I don’t see anything wrong with our Holy Father’s speech, other than that it has been taken out context and that he could have indeed done without the quote that has
caused so much trouble, even if that quote may be proving to be accurate.
But this is not why I meant to write. I meant to say that there are many good Catholics living in Rome and in other, now endangered or further
endangered cities throughout the world. Please keep us in prayer and don’t be so willing to make us fodder for a holy war that no one wants. I am concerned, enraged with the muslim community and with some almost equally violent “Catholics”, and quite literarlly worried about stepping out my door tomorrow morning. I now live in a warzone. Perhaps you think of this as over-reacting. But the whole world has become a warzone and Rome just got a bit hotter.
And simply a further point. The Second Vatican Council is a legitimate ecumenical council and if you cannot accept its teachings (notice I did not say its implementation or interpretation) then you cannot call yourself Catholic. End of discussion.
That is all. I will be praying and fasting. I beg you to continue to do so as well..
“I am concerned, enraged with the muslim community and with some almost equally violent “Catholics”…”
Huh? References please, so I can learn more about these violent Catholics?
Tim J.
Here is your reference:
“Francis DS: I’ve got a t-shirt to answer that question. It reads:
Catholic
American
Pro-Life
Pro-Gun
Conservative
Any questions?
Angry young Muslims (or anyone else who means me harm) who come at me had better be able to read English(especially the third-to-last line).”
While perhaps not as violent (notice I did say almost in my original post) there is definately a violent tendency here, even if it is not sought out. It’s the “Bring it on, baby, because I am gonna kick your….” attitude. This does nothing to help the situation, nor does it do much to remind people that Catholics beleive in the dignity of human life–all human life. Of course we have the right to defend ourselves, but this seems to me to be meant to provoke, which steps out of the bounds of just war. I mean seriously, what would you think if you saw a Muslim guy walking around with a shirt that said:
Islamic
Saudi Arabian
Pro-Gun
Any Questions?
Do you think that you might just feel a little threatened? Would it not seem as if someone were trying to provoke you rather than simply declare the religion and stance on particular issues. We see this as threatening because we view them as already wanting to kill us, but they probably see America as a threat as well.
Not to mention that the original list links things together (at least in my perception) that are not necessarily inherntly linked together. As I recall there was a little thing called the Americanist hersey not so long ago.
I am not saying that we should not be patriotic. I am only saying that we need to be careful in our patriotism.
Yes, there is such a great correlation between cowards who kill innocent people and those who are willing to put their lives on the line and willing, if necessary, to use force to protect themselves and others.
Anonymous: Oh horrors! Not a T-SHIRT?!
Why, this can only end in beheadings and suicide bombings!
Seriously, bring it.
I more regret that he is now saying the quote does not reflect his own beliefs than that he said it. He is still not apologizing for the remark which may be because he like I believes that the quote is perfectly accurate
The Pope’s words were that he used “a citation from a Medieval text that does not express in any fashion my personal thought.” For there to be a valid mental reservation, what clue do you see, in either the Pope’s spoken words or in social custom, that the Pope did not mean what he said “in any fashion”?
The London Cathedral underwent a jihad today.
http://catholiclondoner.blogspot.com/2006/09/very-rushed-post.html
Reminds me of some of the “Christian” protests I’ve seen over abortion, gays, etc. I guess no group is immune from radical extremists.
“…there is definitely a violent tendency here, even if it is not sought out.”
If, by “violent”, you mean any use of force–yes(Even our Lord used force). If, by “violent” you mean the misuse of force–no.
“It’s the ‘Bring it on, baby, because I am gonna kick your…’ attitude. This does nothing to help the situation…”
History shows us that it works pretty well against nations with evil intentions. We won the Cold War because the Soviets knew that, if they “brought it on”, we would “kick their ….”
It also works with small groups and individuals. For example, real nasty, evil people who prey on the weaker people in society, but won’t “bring it on” to a cop, because they know that the cop is prepared to “kick their ….” If there’s one thing I’ve learned from studying history and from 17+ years of experience as a cop, it’s that the *only* thing evil respects is force.
Brother
You (and unfortunatly many of the Popes of today)continue to claim that we “All worship the same God” and that “Moslems should be revered”. The church never taught this before and this is a new invention that has the present Pope now having to backpedal and stray from true Catholic teachings
The Baltimore Catechism (No. 3) states as follows:
Q. 1148. How do we offer God false worship?
A. We offer God false worship by rejecting the religion He has instituted and following one pleasing to ourselves, with a form of worship He has never authorized, approved or sanctioned.
Islam clearly comes under the notion of false worship that (objectively speaking) is not render to God.
Islam is a false Religion. A false religion is any non-Christian religion “in so far as it is not the religion that God revealed and wants to see practiced.
Christ tells us who the true worshipers shall be: “But the hour cometh and now is, when the true adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and in truth.” (Jn. 4:23).
These words go directly against the terminology now used by the modernist hierarchy. They speak from a subjective position wishing to dogmatize and “opinion” which goes directly against the mind of the Church on this point.
This religious subjectivism, which she has always condemned under the names of indifferentism and which “seeks to justify itself under the pretended claims of liberty, failing to recognize the rights of objective truth which are made manifest either by the lights of reason or by Revelation.”
This subjectivism only leads to that Religious indifferentism, which is “one of the most deleterious heresies” and which “places all religions on an equal footing,” inevitably leads one to consider the truth of religious belief as merely a matter of utility for a well-regulated life…. “One ends by considering religion as an entirely individual thing which can be adapted to the dispositions of each one, letting everyone form his own personal religion, and by concluding that all the religions are good even though they contradict each other.”
The Church is not concerned with the subjective dispositions of men. This is for God to Judge. The Church is concerned with objective facts. Her judgments are objective. Pope St. Pius X, for this reason declared that “those who die as infidels are damned.”
The Council of Florence, clearly sets down the four notes of heresy as follows:
1) a pertinacious adherence to teachings expressly contradictory to that which has been defined by the Church;
2) an opinion opposed to a doctrine not explicitly defined by the Church nor clearly proposed dogmatically as an article of Faith;
3) a proposition that, although not directly contradictory to the Faith, nonetheless necessarily entails logical consequences against it; and
4) a speculation which reaches a certain degree of probability of being against the Faith.
The Modernist’s in using these subjective terms to formulate their erroneous notions that “We together with the Muslims worship the same God” go directly against the above statements of the Council of Florence. This formulation works directly against the Churches dogma “Outside the Church there is No Salvation”
Christ has stated “No one comes to the Father but through me” (Jn. 14:6), this precisely means, if you don’t posses Christ, you can’t posses the Father (God) for Christ is that door to the Father. Hence without Christ there is no salvation from God.
So how come I have heard JPII and now B16 continue to say that we all “Worship the Same God????
Mary: Knock it off. There are no death threats at abortion mill protests. You seriously need to reprioritize.
Fr. S: Thank you for the link.
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6193/3077/1600/DSCF0026.jpg
Still think we worship the same God?
Those wacky barbarians.
How many Catholics would be happy if one of our Church leaders was quoted as saying that “Jesus brought things evil and inhumane.”
I’ve heard such things. I’ve extracted them — with great difficulties — from members of other religions who feel free to lie to me because they decide, on their own, that I can’t ask a question because I want the truth.
Now – are you beginning to understand the tremendous backlash from this quote?
I’ve understood it along. Violent bullies objecting to being called violent bullies.
Mary: Knock it off. There are no death threats at abortion mill protests. You seriously need to reprioritize.
There are no death threats in that report of the London protest.
Its a shame the opposing doctrines of theists may very well lead to the untimely demise of mankind. Athesim would be our only hope, but alas the plague of religion seems to be too rooted in the minds of those who refuse to question.
Disclaimer: I am notorious for starting sentences with statements like “In the interest of fairness” and “To be perfectly fair.” What follows is in the same vein. Please take this in the spirit intended! 🙂
Jared,
No, but there was the infamous “Nuremberg Files” web site, which listed the names, home and business addresses, and in some cases family descriptions (wife’s name, kids’ names and ages) and Social Security numbers of abortion providers. (I can’t remember whether there were photos.) Although the hosts of the site said they were not advocating violence, when a doctor was killed they would put a strikethrough on the doctor’s name. The site was eventually shut down, but it existed – I was skeptical, so I went to check it out when it first started hitting the news (more than five years ago now, I’d say). There were also the recent assaults on some Baptists by Maronite Catholics in Lebanon.
Those come to mind off the top of my head. However, I’ll grant that it’s much harder to come up with examples of people committing atrocities in the name of Christ than in the name of Allah. I can’t speak to whether the “moderates” or the Wahhabis (or someone altogether different) have a “right” understanding of Islam, because I’ve really never studied Islam in-depth. I’ve got quite enough to study about my own faith.
Shannon, I live in a suburb of Detroit and work in midtown Detroit. There’s a tremendous Muslim population in the metro area; Dearborn (another suburb) has the second-largest Lebanese Muslim population in the country, and Hamtramck has a substantial Yemeni community. There are also a *lot* of Muslim students (many of them internationals) at the university I work at; I used to live next door to the mosque that served the university community. In short, very few days elapse for me without encountering several Muslims, both in passing and with interaction. While I appreciate your concern for your safety and that of others, let’s please bear in mind that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and the leader of the Church.
Christ avoided confrontations at certain times, as you’ve said, because His time had not yet come. However, God’s time is not our time. I trust that the Holy Father believed and believes that what he said was not only true, but necessary, and necessary at this time; and I would bet a cookie that he did not say it without being pretty sure that he was saying what God wanted him to say. Whether you or I – or anyone else – particularly wants to be martyred (Lord give me the strength if it is Your will, but I will not seek it out) is not really the issue. The issue, as I see it, is whether this is what God wants.
And Bill, in secular terms I agree that evil is only frightened by force, although IMHO, in secular terms evil is harder to define. However, the faith of the martyrs inspired scores of conversions and ultimately helped build the Church as we know it, so I’d venture to say Satan’s biggest concern is not force.
Larry, having been there, I can safely say that there’s no hope in atheism.
“…I can safely say that there’s no hope in atheism.” Nor logic.
“Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God.” (1 Jn 4:7)
So who’s an atheist?
I have worked at a certain job now for less than 6 months and have run into being accused of racism indirectly or directly twice now. Both times there was no racism involved. Racism is one of the first things some people will jump too.
Pray for the Pope!!!!
When all this is over and 50 or so years have past, there will be those who will say that Pope Benedict didn’t do enough.
Eliz(abeth?), I am sorry to say that I suspect you are right.
[I]Athesim would be our only hope, but alas the plague of religion seems to be too rooted in the minds of those who refuse to question.[/i]
I’ve noticed a tendency among atheists such as yourself to slip in a quick Freudian shot against religion and then slink away.
Man up and expound on your slur, or retract it. I’ll interpret your silence as evidence of your ignorance.
Pope Benedict…tell it like it is and don’t apologize for being right! I will pray for our Holy Father’s safety and the safety of all Christians around the world.
I’ll interpret your silence as evidence of your ignorance.
What shall we interpret your demand as? Insecurity?
[I]What shall we interpret your demand as? Insecurity?[/i].
You can interpret my demand in the same way in which you would interpret your own presumed demand if someone slandered your mother, your father, or one of your siblings.
I suspect that you’re the original atheist in question, unwilling to expound the “religion as plague” thesis (almost surely for sheer dearth of evidence, Islam notwithstanding).
You can interpret my demand in the same way in which you would interpret your own presumed demand if someone slandered your mother, your father, or one of your siblings.
I wouldn’t demand anything. I’d bless them! I’d roll out the red carpet and invite them in, for I delight in insults. Like Paul said, “I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties.”
Read about Pizarro and the Spanish genocide and conquest in Peru.
A priest helped out. Brutal. Disgusting.
Cortez was not as bad and had indigenous allies and the Aztecs not as noble as the Incas but also brutal.
Do you think the Incas or Aztecs could believe they should of limited immigration or Spanish or Catholics were bloodthirsty who destroyed their cultures and killed their people (mostly by disease but also direct killing, war, rape) by millions upon millions (again mostly by smallpox)
Read Pizzaro and how he treated the Incas in present day Peru and learn how all religions including Catholicism have brutal histories.
The typical batch of Inquisition, Crusades, Galieleo are nuanced and really not as bad as everyone says. And the Crusades were a response to Muslim agression, but did turn into trade issues (like the Venetians sacking Constantinople in the 4th Crusade) but the 1st conquest of Jerusalem was brutal.
The Muslims are overacting (as a group and/or in specific cases) Again, the Muslims are overeacting and acting innapropriate. Their are inherent problems with Islam.
HOWEVER, that does not mean some of the far reaching conclusions.
The American Indians could call white people, and Christians and our government liars, as they did break their word and killed and displaced them.
One issue that some have with poster Bill912 is that we (the United States) are over in their countries, and yes, we had 9-11, but they had all sorts of things, we are in Iraq, they are not in Florida, we are in Afghanistan, they are not in Michigan (at least not invading with violence in Michigan), we (our CIA) overthrew Modaseq, Muslims did not overthrow the United States or Mexico or Canada.
The Pope was right, he did not commit error, it was only a gaffe as it has been perceived
I blame the media first for reporting it as they have done and fanning the flames on it
and yes of course the Muslim protests are irrational and violent and wrong
However, I am worried about a diplomatic response and healing and peace on this issue (if possible) and not a call for another Crusade as some “trads” suggest (and I try to go to Latin pre-Vatican II indult “Tridentine” Mass when possible) that there is no respect or dialogue with Islam, and Allah is a demon, and we must all stand up against Islam–as peace and co-existence albeit through strength sometimes violence and Realpolitik–I am concerned about attacks on Rome or the Holy Father and attacks on Chrisitans (whatever the flaw in the initial motivation)
From the link provided by Fr. Stephanos:
“Jesus will rise (sic) the sword of Islam.”
“Pope go to Hell.”
“Islam will conquer Rome.”
Veiled death threats? I think so.
FYI, those quotes were from “British” Muslims.
The enemy is among us. I feel sorry for the nice tolerant Muslims who are also among us though. There are at least a handful of them.
Veiled death threats? I think so.
“These men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish.” (2 Peter 2:12)
Veiled death threat?
I find it hilarious that people act as if radical Islam and Christianity are somehow equivalent in terms of being a danger to personal liberties.
Try your atheistic ramblings in Saudi Arabia, or any other country under Muslim law, and see how long you get away with it.
You are free to criticize both East and West only because you live in the West, where the shadow – or the ghost – of Judeo-Christian morality still lingers in the civil law.
It is time to create the Urban II society.
Also, we should pray to Don Juan of Austria, the bastard son of Holy Roman Emporer Charles V.
May Our Lady of Guadalupe (the sins of Cortez notwithstanding) and pray the Rosary and have another victory as we did at Lepanto.
We should also pray to the great (literally) Emporer Charlemange (Karl de Grosse in German or the official Latin Carlous Magnus)for a Victory like his grandfather meted out to the Arian heretics following a demon charading as an angel (Gabriel) of light (Arabic Jibril transliterated) at the great Battle of Tours in 732.
Give us our Charles the Hammers and our Don Juans of Austria to defend Christendom.
Pope John Paul II should be called the great because God gave him victory over communism so it is equal to Leo going out to greet Atila or other great international political moves, Communism while not the staying power of Islam, because of the sterility and non spirituality of materialism and aetheism, nonetheless was a demonic threat to the entire world with more resources in that time and place than Islam. John Paul the II was not perfect (I agree with the earlier poster of giving anything to Cardinal Law but removing him to a monastery to live penance) but the opponents of Assissi and ecunemism and even the kissing of the Koran exaggerate (respect and customs)—these are not the causes of Islam or this current problem, recognizing we have a common claimed spiritual (and perhaps genetic for them) father in Abraham or there are similarities or the well intentioned although perhaps flawed statements of Pope John Paul II did not lead to Islamic terror (certainly him saying positive things about Martin Luther did not nor him recognizing Protestant saints who died in the name of Jesus Christ) The downfall of communism was supernatural. The conversions, focus on objective truth (Veritas Splendor), the devotion to the Blessed Mother (Totus Tous), the reaching out to every culture around the world and the young (Yes I agree some of the WYD stuff was stupid and I am too old now to go), the downfall of communism and the providing of Hope through Jesus Christ to Billions makes him the Great.
With that said, John Paul the II may not have understood the post communist threat of Islam and Benedict may have a better handle on it.
John Paul the Great interced for us.
Has anyone come across anything as to what the Pope is being asked to apologize for?
Something like: “We demand that the Pope apologize for saying Muhammad brought nothing new except evil”
(which I know he didn’t say)
All I’ve seen are things like: “We demand that the Pope apologize personally”
You are free to criticize both East and West only because you live in the West, where the shadow – or the ghost – of Judeo-Christian morality still lingers in the civil law.
Nonsense. Religions could and can be criticized by those living in many non-Judeo-Christian societies.
I wouldn’t demand anything. I’d bless them! I’d roll out the red carpet and invite them in, for I delight in insults. Like Paul said, “I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties
You proposed that someone who calls an atheist on their “religion as opiate of the masses” canard is “insecure.”
I asked you to expound. You did not.
Do you have an answer, or do you concur that the initial statement was the half-baked canard that it always has been?
I say we ignor the anonymous ignorant troll. This person does not come here to discuss religion but to make him/herself feel tough by insulting Christians.
Juan, Wasn’t Charles Martel’s victory against the Muslim Moors not the Arians? The Visigoths were Catholic by this time too. I agree Charles Martel and Don Juan of Austria are heros for our time.
We need to recognize the truth in Islam, but also the error and the fact that the aspects of truth may well make Islam all the more dangerous. History and recent events make all too clear that those of us (I was once one) who want to whitewash Islam, making them out to be our brother Monotheists and saying the bad ones are the Muslim equivalent of the KKK and not representative of the whole are quite wrong.
You proposed that someone who calls an atheist on their “religion as opiate of the masses” canard is “insecure.”
No, you are incorrect in what was said. Read again, and this time, don’t read your own agenda into it. You will see more clearly that way.
The following is not an attack of the pope, only a correction of Tony’s hagiography:
Pope John Paul II should be called the great because God gave him victory over communism so it is equal to Leo going out to greet Atila or other great international political moves
There was a little more to the fall of communism than Pope John Paul II, wouldn’t you say?
John Paul the II was not perfect (I agree with the earlier poster of giving anything to Cardinal Law but removing him to a monastery to live penance) but the opponents of Assissi and ecunemism and even the kissing of the Koran exaggerate (respect and customs)—these are not the causes of Islam or this current problem, recognizing we have a common claimed spiritual (and perhaps genetic for them) father in Abraham or there are similarities or the well intentioned although perhaps flawed statements of Pope John Paul II did not lead to Islamic terror (certainly him saying positive things about Martin Luther did not nor him recognizing Protestant saints who died in the name of Jesus Christ)
Several problems here:
1. Pope John Paul II did what no pope before him had ever done with regard to the Muslims.
Lepanto? The Crusades? Will you try, against all odds, to make the argument that past popes were just fine and good with Islam? Can you imagine Pope John Paul II declaring the need to say the Rosary for the conversion of Islam? The horror! There would be outrage! You see the media praising this stuff, popes and “interfaith dialogue.” And then they turn around and stab him in the back when he lets slip the truth that…wait for it…Islam is heresy
This is about souls, Tony. Not an opportunity to go and pray with people who slaughtered our spiritual ancestors viciously, and continue to do so to this very day
Ever read the Quran, Tony? Give Sura 98:1-8 a try on for size and see how it meshes with Islam being one of the “great monotheistic religions.”
If you push real hard, you can say Socrates was a monotheist and that the lesser gods under Zeus were “saints.” Monotheism does not equal freedom from grievious error.
And, as for the saints who presumably would have frowned upon ecumenical outreach to the Muslims, let’s try:
The Angelic Doctor, on the errors of Mohammed: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/3543/testmny.htm
St. Alphonsus Liguori, Church doctor, ripped into Mahometanism in his “The History of Heresies and their refutation”: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/3543/worship.htm
St. Francis of Assisi and the first five Franciscan martyrs, as well as would-be martyrs like St. Anthony of Padua: http://www.traditioninaction.org/bestof/bst001vennari.htm
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (with an eye towards #2): http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11MORTA.HTM
I would submit that no rational human being, no matter how skilled they be at spinning mutually exclusive things to look the same, could possible reconcile the popes and saints who denounced Mahometanism for the grievious error and heresy it is (St. Alphonsus called the Mahometan paradise “fit for beasts”) with the latter day popes’ very warm, friendly advances.
I cannot and will not speculate as to Pope John Paul II’s interior motives. No one has any idea.
But, objectively speaking, according to the saints, the popes, the Magisterium, Islam is an error, not something whose muck is worth fishing through to find a few grains of truth.
I could spend a few hours on Planned Parenthood’s website and find something medically true (perhaps). Should we call NARAL, PP, and all the grand old feminist gals together to have an “ecumenical dialogue” between pro-baby killers and pro-lifers? Why not? We need to be “open” to other people’s faiths, right? And, hey, there are some grains of truth in PP’s religion.
They murderously feed off the blood of aborted children. There’s some stuff in Christianity about shedding one’s blood for the Faith, so, it’s, like, almost the same, right?
Please. The Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded. The Islamic religion was started by a 7th century Arabic rapist who had sexual relations with many wives, including a 9 year old girl, and presumably received his visions from Satan.
Can you possible justify “esteeming” that faith?
JV is quite right.
Satan can not decieve anyone without some semblance of good. Perhaps the most nasy way he does this is by including truth or something close to the truth in his lies. With Islam he used the idea of a single, all-powerful god to elicit the fervor that comes from perverted monotheism, and included names like Abraham, Mary, and “Isa” to confuse matters and make Muslims think they are a correction of past faiths. Throw in one or two old pagan traditions, the promise of a worldly heaven where you get to have sex with lots of virgins, lies about the nature of Christianity, tons of hate, and orders to commit “Jihad”, and you have an excelent weapon. That weapon has spread terror and death throughout the world, not just to Christians but to Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, and anyone else they meet. Of course they early on separated into factions so they can kill and hate each other too.
Of course, human beings remain basically good, so once these lies of Satan left the mouth of Mohammed or perhaps the pens of the writers of the Quran they were subject to reinterpretation by decent people. We have seen this in at least some Muslims, and only a minority are as bloodthirsty, at least in practice, as the worst of them like Al Qaeda.
“Athesim would be our only hope”
yep, you guys did a bang-up job last century.
Charles Martel did fight off the Moors
I, call them Arian heretics, fooled possibly by a Demon Jibril (Gabriel), as referred to them by Harvard Historian Christopher Dawson
Muslims theologically are similiar to Arians
I was not speaking of the Arian Visigoths
+J.M.J+
>>>Can you imagine Pope John Paul II declaring the need to say the Rosary for the conversion of Islam? The horror!
Well, he did have some less-than-complementary things to say about Islam, such as the following from Crossing the Threshhold of Hope,:
“Whoever knows the Old and New Testaments, and then reads the Koran, clearly sees the process by which it completely reduces Divine Revelation. It is impossible not to note the movement away from what God said about Himself, first in the Old Testament through the Prophets, and then finally in the New Testament through His Son. In Islam all the richness of God’s self-revelation, which constitutes the heritage of the Old and New Testaments, has definitely been set aside.
“Some of the most beautiful names in the human language are given to the God of the Koran, but He is ultimately a God outside of the world, a God who is only Majesty, never Emmanuel, God-with-us. Islam is not a religion of redemption. There is no room for the Cross and the Resurrection. Jesus is mentioned, but only as a prophet who prepares for the last prophet, Muhammad. There is also mention of Mary, His Virgin Mother, but the tragedy of redemption is completely absent. For this reason not only the theology but also the anthropology of Islam is very distant from Christianity.” (pp.92-93)
I don’t recall whether Muslims were upset over this, but I think some Buddhists objected to something he said about their religion in the same book.
In Jesu et Maria,
John Paul the II was right in a polite and scholarly way
I was told today some news of the founder of the Heralds of the Gospel who was in Rome, in which a sudanese priest came to hime with great enthusiasm, and there he related a story of 5 Catholics who were mayrtred by muslims, but even though outnumbered and outgunned, the Catholics killed 50 of the attacking muslims. That is truly the Catholic spirit. Attempt and give everything to convert the pagans and sinners, but when they only want war and hatred against the Church, then defend God with you’re life if neccesary.
The Holy Father appears to do everything deliberately, after a great amount of reading, thought and prayer. He is very familiar with the true nature of Islam and the power of the media. He knows exactly what he’s doing. We just haven’t figured it all out yet. Let’s see what unfolds.
again, i say, if we cannot speak the truth, then it’s all over.
moral relativism is a powerful force to rekon with these last days.
the religion of “peace” shows it’s fruits!.
where is the media?.
Rosemarie’s quote from JPII is quite difficult to square with the paragraph from the Catechism regarding how we all worship the same God.
Maybe not impossible to square but very difficult.
Thanks, Rosemarie.
I am also of the opinion that Pope Benedict very deliberately put that quote in the speach. He had a reason, and I’m sure he tryed to anticipate what the Muslim reaction to it would be. Still, he is not perfect, and may possibly have underestimated the severity of the world reaction. I don’t know.
I’d like to think like some do that all this was carefully planned out by the Pope, but I can’t be confident of it. Perhaps this is the downside of his apparently always writing his own material (as opposed to JPII who had ghost writers for much of what he said). It is an admirable and honest thing to write all your own speaches etc., but for better or worse ghost writers would have avoided this kind of controversy, and a lesser amount of writing would have let the Pope be more careful and calculated in what he did write. Perhaps this realy was a slip, where he was a little more forthright about the truth than he wants to be. Even if that is the case, it does not mean it was not God’s will that this be said.
Jared,
Rosemarie’s quote from JPII is quite difficult to square with the paragraph from the Catechism regarding how we all worship the same God.
Maybe not impossible to square but very difficult.
I’m just not understanding the difficulty. Just because they worship the same God doesn’t mean they understand Him, or that their worship of Him isn’t severely flawed.
To offer a poor analogy, I can look at an xray and not even understand what I’m looking at, much less what’s wrong. My doctor can look at the same xray and tell me precisely what the problem is. Are we looking at different xrays? No, the object has not changed. I just don’t see very clearly what I’m looking at, while my doctor does see the xray very clearly.
The object of Muslim worship — the God of Abraham who created and rules the universe — is the same as the object of Christian worship, even if the Muslim vision of and worship of that God is severely flawed.
bro cadfael…”poor analogy” it is!.
x-rays do not reveal themselves as god does
x-rays do not talk, as god has.
one of the inescapable conclusions of idolaters in the old testament was death!.
the reason seems obvious….false gods.
jehovah may have revealed himself to these people but because of wanting to hide the truth, god then gave them over to “other” gods.
islam rejects just about every major essential salvific christian doctrine, their object of worship has clearly nothing to do with the god of the bible!.
I cannot and will not speculate as to Pope John Paul II’s interior motives. No one has any idea.
Allow me to speculate then. John Paul saw heresies such as communinism and even secularism to be great dangers to humankind. Further, from a geopolitical viewpoint, Muslim countries made useful allies in opposing such goals of the secular culture of death like abortion and birth control on the international stage of the U.N.
Sure Islam is a heresy; but at least Muslims believe in God, even if they do not have an honest picture of him.
Just a thought.
Communinism = communism. Funny.
Erick,
…”poor analogy” it is!.
I don’t disagree, but let’s take break it down.
x-rays do not reveal themselves as god does
Um. That wasn’t the point of the analogy. If you thought I was trying to tell you that, it would be an even worse analogy than I thought.
x-rays do not talk, as god has.
I agree that x-rays do not talk, and that God has, but I’m having trouble seeing how this has anything to do with the analogy.
Perhaps you’re saying that because God has revealed Himself and He talks, they should be able to see Him clearly. OK, agreed. But the analogy still holds to this point. I probably should be able to read an xray because I’ve had so many of them, but the fact that I can’t doesn’t mean its not an xray. It means I’m ignorant.
one of the inescapable conclusions of idolaters in the old testament was death!.
the reason seems obvious….false gods.
I agree. Neither I nor the Catholic Church nor Islam is claiming that Baal or the golden calf are God. We are claiming that the God of Abraham is not a false God.
jehovah may have revealed himself to these people but because of wanting to hide the truth, god then gave them over to “other” gods.
The God of Abraham is not an “other” god.
islam rejects just about every major essential salvific christian doctrine,
Agreed. That is why Pope John Paul II has pointed out that their worship and understanding of God is truly flawed. It doesn’t change the identity of the God of Abraham.
their object of worship has clearly nothing to do with the god of the bible!.
Actually, it has something to do with it, because it is directed to the God of Abraham, who is, in fact, referenced in the Bible.
My analogy may be so poor as to be completely useless, but I don’t see that you’ve even addressed it, much less pointed out how it suffers.
bro cadfael, no analogy is perfect.
i’m not picking on you for that!.
we agree?
but when the muslim tells you that they’ve got another x-ray that is different than the one you are looking at, then, and only then we have problems.
the muslim faith has another god, no matter how much they say it is the god of abraham.
it was issac that god used to test abraham’s faith, not his brother.
Erick,
I agree that no analogy is perfect. I would go further and say that every analogy is more imperfect than it is perfect.
You do agree that the Abraham of which they speak when they refer to the “God of Abraham” is the same Abraham that is in the Bible, correct?
no.
bro cadfael we are just going to not agree on this one.
islam uses mis-leadig terms in all of their apologetics ( including this one point ).
picking and choosing biblical terms and or names does not qualify any religious faith as a worshipper of the god of the bible.
i guess we must first scale the barrier of semantics when we come to this point.
if they are not saved- then it is another god.
maybe i’m just not as nice as you ( and i do mean that ).
islam still retains the name of “allah” which is the name of a pagan god that used to be worshipped inside the black stone in mecca prior to muhammed taking control-(moon god, ie the crecent moon symbol).
again, the x-ray you and i look at is not the same x-ray islam looks at.
they may both be x-rays, but that’s where the similitude stops!.
Well, this is definitely a diversion from Bush. 😉
Erick,
If you do not think they are referring to the Abraham of the Bible, then I agree that any further discussion on the topic is probably pointless.
Out of curiosity, though, do you believe that Jews today worship the same God? They would not be saved without faith in Christ, so I think you would have to say they worship a different God. But I was wondering if you have a different explanation.
bro. cadfael.
the jews are in a separate category altogether.
no, they are not saved.
but notice that paul calls their situation a “mystery” (niv)-
furthermore he says that their hardening is in “part”, UNTIL some future recognition of the true god.
if this was not so then paul would not have said that…”he (jesus) will turn GODLESSNESS away from jacob…” romans11:25-26.
if they are now godless…then yes they are not worshiping the god of the bible. (yet).
notice in verse 28 of the same chapter, paul calls them (the jews), “enemies” of the gospel.
if we were living in b.c- your conclusion follows.
but now that we are in a.d- it does not.
sorry bro. cadfael i failed to mention that my theological persuation is dispensational in nature.
Erick,
I’m sorry, but I could not follow your response. To clarify, I understand Jews are different than Muslims. What I was asking was whether Jews today (not B.C.) who worship God, worship the same God we do?
You said that my conclusion does not follow, but I did not make a conclusion. I just asked a question.
no. they don’t.
i thought i pointed that out.
you seem to think that they do, that’s why i said your conclusion does not follow in a.d.
if you do not think the jews are worshiping the same god of the christians then i apologize, i misunderstood.
Erick,
If you aren’t bothered by my questions, what about first century Jews who did not believe that Jesus was the Son of God? Did they worship the same God as the Christians or a different God?
Let’s say a Jew attained the age of reason before Jesus was born. He worships God his entire life, from the moment he attained the age of reason until his natural death in 90 A.D. He was familiar with Jesus, but did not believe that he was the Son of God.
At what point did the God he was worshipping stop being God?
Brother Cadfael,
At what point did the God he was worshipping stop being God?
Perhaps at the point when without invincible ignorance he rejected the divinity of at least one member of the Trinity. If you have rejected one you have rejected them all, have you not? This is only an hypothesis.
ah yes!, the good ‘ol situational ethics.
i believe bro. cadfael that the book of romans(again) deals with the subject of those who never heard.
god is just. on that i think we will both agree!.
was the thief on the cross trinitarian?.
at what point did god begin to hold believers accountable to this essential?.
these are hard questions bro. cadfael.
i do know that no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law(rom 3:20).
the rightful conclusion to the dilema is that if no righteousness comes from the law…then it does not come from god.
as a matter of fact bro. cadfael ( and you may know this already)- the law never justified anyone, old testament or new!.
again, romans deals with this question.
Brother Cadfael,
What would you think of this slightly different situation, taken more or less from C.S. Lewis (I’m not sure he was refering to Islam but if he wasn’t he screwed up royally in his book The Last Battle because it really sounds like he is talking about Islam).
Say there are people somewhere who worship and evil pagan god, either of their own imagining or more likely to be definitively identified as Satan. This god orders them to do all kinds of abominable things and they do it. Eventually they come in contact with Christians and say “our god is your God, the god of Abraham, only we know the truth about him and you are unbelievers.”
Would you say that these satanic pagans now worship the same God as us just because they say so? Can their God who demands blood be the same as ours who gives his blood for us?
In the case of Islam you have pretty much the same situation except that the founder knew about Christianity (and Judaism) from the begining and so wove names and other elements from them into his teachings. I do not see though how this changes the fact that their god is not at all our God. Just because they say he is all-powerful and was the god of Abraham does not automatically mean that he really is.
To use a different example, if I procaimed my cat the god of Abraham and convinced someone to worship her would you say the person worships the same God as you? Wouldn’t a figment of my imagination, not even having objective being at all, even less be the true God, no matter how much I say otherwise or how many people worship that figment of their imagination?
erick,
I happen to more or less agree with you on this, but I would recommend you use capital letters, complete sentences, and paragraphs if you want to be more respected on this blog. You are not IMing here, and your comments are often hard to decipher.
JR Stoodley–
That is an excellent (and hilarious) example which sums things up very nicely.
I can think of no pope ever before who went on about “worshipping the same God as the Muslims.”
This “Allah” fellow who demands the blood of Christians and Jews is not God. He is a figment of Mohammed’s disgusting imagination, more than likely some Satanically inspired creature. Were Mohammed’s revelation true, it would not have led 1 billion souls into a formal denial of Christ, the Son of God.
All kudos to Pope John Paul for denouncing Islam for the heresy it is in his Crossing the Threshold of Hope.
I personally wish he would have said the same thing in public, used the Assisi conference to tell the pagans and heretics that they need to convert, and taken that Quran he was given and handed it right back, shaking his head and saying, “I cannot respect a book which heaps such blasphemy on the flock I am charged to tend.”
J.R.,
Perhaps at the point when without invincible ignorance he rejected the divinity of at least one member of the Trinity. If you have rejected one you have rejected them all, have you not? This is only an hypothesis.
What you have described, I believe, is a loss of faith. The God he was worshiping did not change.
Would you say that these satanic pagans now worship the same God as us just because they say so?
No, I would not. Nor would I say that your cat is the same God.
Erick,
Testing the limits of one’s positions or beliefs with hypotheticals is not situational ethics. And the rest of your answer has nothing to do with whether the God they worship is the same or not. That they have lost faith in God does not mean that God has changed. Their worship is severely flawed, and they are not saved if they do not have faith, but their God has not changed. They have.
And no one here has said a word about justification by the law or otherwise. That is an entirely different question.
JV,
I can think of no pope ever before who went on about “worshipping the same God as the Muslims.”
Does Pope St. Gregory VII count?
Brother Cadfael,
What you have described, I believe, is a loss of faith. The God he was worshiping did not change.
Exactly. The man used to worship God, but when more was revealed about this God he rejected God. Now, if the man was in a state of invincible ignorance he would not be responsible for his rejection of the divinity of Christ and thus would still believe in and worship God. I hope most Jews are in this situation.
As I have said before, once the lies of Islam left either the mouth of Mohammed or the pens of the writers of the Koran they became subject to reinterpretation by good people. I hope it is possible that some Muslims are in invincible ignorance about Christ and the Holy Spirit and reinterpret “Allah” to such a degree that they can indeed be said to worship the true God.
Brother Cadfael,
I should have asked in my last email, if you accept that in my hypothetical scenarios that the people would not be worshiping God, what about Islam makes you take the opposite position? Or is it just because of what VII and the Catechism say and you don’t understand why (a respectible position, I just still think the Church does not have the authority to say whether Joe bin Bloe worships God or not.)
J.R.,
Perhaps we are talking past each other here. Whether ignorance is invincible or not is relevant if we’re talking about salvation, but we’re not. We’re simply talking about whether the God they worship is the same God or not. Whether their ignorance of who He really is is invincible or not seems to me to be beside the point.
Why did I call a combox post an email? I didn’t get enough sleep last night. Maybe it’s time to take a break.
jr- what does me using complete sentences have to do with respect?.
which comment i have made is hard to decipher?
i repeatedly answered the question bro. cadfael asked by saying no.
somehow it did not seem to stick.- sorry another incomplete one.
bro. cadfael- in no way or fashion did i imply that god changed!.
read the verses i quoted from, there you will find that it is the jews themselves who rejected the true god (rom 11:15), that is why paul talks of them as being the branches that were “broken off”.
sorry i forgot to use capital letters again!.
J.R.,
OK, only because you asked real nice, I will put aside the teachings of (i) an ecumenical council in two separate documents, one of which was a dogmatic constitution, (ii) three Popes, including one that has been canonized, one that soon will be, and one that is currently seated in the Chair of St. Peter, and (iii) the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church on this topic and tell you why in my opinion they are right when they teach (repeatedly) that Christians (Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant), Jews and Muslims worship the same God.
I don’t think the question can be approached from the context of salvation, which is what I think you and Erick have both been doing. Yes, everyone who is saved worships the one true God, but some worship God and are not saved. (Their worship, obviously, would not proceed from faith, but from some other motivation.) The question of invincible ignorance answers the question of whether one is saved or not, not the question of whether their God is really God or not.
We understand God in terms of His relationship with us and in the context of our relationships with each other. When we say that God is the God of Abraham, there is a real, tangible connection back to the historical person of Abraham. His God is our God, whether we understand everything about Him that Abraham did or not. Christianity, Judaism and Islam share this link, it is not one that is simply manufactured (as in the case of your cat).
A return question, what about the “Unknown God” caused St. Paul to say that the Greeks were worshipping God when they worshipped the “Unknown God”?
I saw a Church of Christ site explaining that Benedict was “simply quoting a former pope”. neither, Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus not the educated Persian were a Bishop of Rome. I suppose other Christians can get the story wrong as well.
Does Pope St. Gregory VII count?
If he made the same sweeping overtures towards Islam as the past Holy Father did, sure.
But I presume the St. Gregory you are thinking of is the one who said, at his most ecumenical, that forced conversions were a no-no.
three Popes, including one that has been canonized, one that soon will be
After a point this becomes papolatry.
It’s great to have a devotion to a Servant of God, great to point out someone’s sanctity, better still to have a balanced perspective and recognize and seek to address concerns (Balamand, UUS, Assisi, Eulogy of Martun Luther, visits to synagogues and mosques, the “Old Covenant” comment, etc.).
But when you begin to state as a point of fact that you are certain that Pope John Paul II will be canonized, this borders on heresy.
The Holy Spirit will confirm someone’s sainthood. Many great, great Catholics have not been canonized (Blessed Pius IX, Blessed John XXIII, Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, Blessed Imelda, Ven. Leo XIII, Ven Mary of Agreda, Ven. Pius XII, Blessed Kateri, Blessed Duns Scotus, Blessed Innocent XI, Blessed Urban V, Blesseds Jacinta and Francisco, Blessed Angela, Blessed Hildegard, and many, many thousands more).
Some of those have been dead for years.
For you to claim on your own “authority” that Pope John Paul II will be canonized, because you said so, is very poor form indeed and shows disrespect to the process, which is not dependent on the desires of the Catholic population, but on the Holy Spirit.
I certainly hope that Pope John Paul II is a saint. But it is maddening to see you elevate him by your own fiat, call him “the Great” and in so doing place him over many, many great popes who never earned the title, and declare all of this with such certainty.
A gaffe!!!! What is the line about walking in his shoes? Nothing the Pope says is a gaffe. Only our pathetic responses due to our attempting to understand his mission.
Bro. Cadfael:
Nothing in acts 17 implies that the pagans were in fact worshiping the one true God by having an altar to an unknown god.
Paul used this as an opportunity to testify, but was in no way indicating that he was merely “correcting” or better “interpreting” their faith in an unknown god.
The god Paul went on to testify about was nothing like the ones the Athenans were used to, as evidenced by the fact that only a”few” believed (acts 17:34).
JV,
No disrespect to anyone intended. There is nothing heretical nor distasteful about openly professing an opinion that someone is worthy of canonization nor stating an opinion that they will be canonized. There is no “authority” claimed in such statements, and it is really rather silly of you to act like there is.
I am sorry that referring to Pope John Paul II as “the Great” maddens you. I note again that Pope Benedict XVI himself has often referred to him as “the great Pope John Paul II.” No disrespect to any other pope is intended or should be inferred.
As for whether you would call Pope St. Gregory VII’s statements a “sweeping overture” or not I can’t say. What he did say is that Muslims worship the same God.
+J.M.J+
>>>I certainly hope that Pope John Paul II is a saint. But it is maddening to see you elevate him by your own fiat, call him “the Great”
“The Great” is a title given by popular acclaim, not by official decree of the Church. So there is nothing wrong with lay people calling JP2 that – and Brother Cadfael is hardly the only one doing so.
>>>and in so doing place him over many, many great popes who never earned the title,
St. Gertrude is the only female saint called “the Great,” and she’s not even a Doctor of the Church. Does that title “place her over” St. Catherine of Siena, St. Teresa of Avila, the Little Flower, St. Mary Magdalene, etc?
Maybe it’s not fair, but lots of things aren’t fair.
In Jesu et Maria,
Erick,
“What you unknowingly worship, I now proclaim to you.” Acts 17:23.
He is not saying stop worshiping a false god and start worshiping the God of Abraham. He is saying let me tell you how great this God is that you unknowingly worship. I agree that what he ultimately told them bore little resemblance to what they had understood about the Unknown God, but that doesn’t make it a different God, at least if you take St. Paul at his word.
Erick,
I went to Mass in Syria and Turkey when I was working over there. The Eastern Rite Catholic and Orthodox liturgies use the term Allah (for God) if it is in Arabic (The Latin Rite Novus Ordo is in Arabic and also French) (The Orthodox (Greek) is in Arabic in Southeast Turkey and West Syria). Allah is the Arabic word for God.
I am not justifying error nor violent irrationality on behalf of Muslims.
However the word Allah does mean God.
There is a history of paganism/polytheism in Mecca with many Gods (including honors to Christianity and the Blessed Mother and Child).
However, that Allah is or only is the moon god or merely an idol of some sort is not accurate.
Allah is the Arabic word for God. That does NOT mean that Muslims have an accurate theological representation of God but it is accurate enough to not be a polytheistic moon diety. They certainly do not believe in the Incarnation nor the Trinity. But they do believe in a God defined by many, as Pope John Paul II puts it, beautiful and accurate names for God (Merciful, Just, All seeing, All powerful etc) which connotes at least partially the attributes of God (at least as Father and Creator) of the God in Christian theology. Again, this does not mean that there are not severe problems in Islam–only that indeed they are Monotheists and the Arabic word Allah is translated into English as God.
Bro. Cadfael-, with all due respect, if what the pagans were worshiping bore little resemblance to what Paul defined, then they were not unknowingly worshiping the truth.
Little resemblance hardly qualifies as a true x-ray, to use your analogy.
Robert-, the United Pentecostal Church is monotheistic also. Do they worship the same God?.
Erick,
Bro. Cadfael-, with all due respect, if what the pagans were worshiping bore little resemblance to what Paul defined, then they were not unknowingly worshiping the truth.
With all due respect, should I take your word on this, or St. Paul’s?
I’ve been unable to keep track of this due to illness … so I’ve not had a chance to read thoroughly. But I wanted to add a couple of thoughts to the mix, so, I hope you’ll bear with me.
JR S.: Regarding CS Lewis’s The Last Battle … No, I’m 100% certain that the Callormeens are meant to represent the Mohammedans and that Tash is Allah.
Br. C.: You say the worship that the Mohammedans offer to God is flawed but that they still worship God. I’d almost agree EXCEPT for the fact that, when we perform certain acts of worship, we ipso facto offer worship to false gods.
Example: Matt 6:24 “No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.”
So, to what is Christ referring? I’d always been taught that He refers here to being overly zealous in pursuit of financial wealth. Therefore, one–even if he calls himself a Christian–ceases to worship God and begins to worship a demon-“god” by the name of Mammon … the god of wealth.
So too, in this situation. In pursuing the things that the Koran orders Mohammedans to pursue (and in the very act of believing that God would speak the glaringly obvious straw men with regard to the Trinity, the Incarnation, etc.) … well, I just don’t see how this could be the True God of Abraham.
As I’ve always said before, I could be wrong, I could be wrong, I could be wrong.
Bro. Cadfael-, O.k
we disagree. Paul was only using this as an opportunity to witness.
I guess your concept of the nature of God and my concept of the nature of God are not the same.
God is truth.
You cannot worship a mixture of truth and man made concepts and still maintain it is the same God.
No point in going on Bro. Cadfael-, this is not essential, so we are still brothers. I respect your views.
The pagans were worshiping whatever god they did not know about, just to be sure they were not slighting some god out of ignorance by denying him worship. St. Paul proclaimed that this unknown god is our God, he after all being the only god who exists and at least all but unknown to the Greeks.
This is not the same as in Islam where they do worship a god, and the question is whether that god is God. I differ with you in that I think the identification of the Muslim Allah with Abraham is in fact as artificial a construct as with my other examples. A man imagins a specifically non-Trinitarian god and calls it the god of Abraham and all-powerful, but that does not make it so.
The point about invincible ignorance is that if a person really does not know about the Trinitarian nature of God then he or she can still be worshiping God, just having an incomplete idea of Him. If however they have been presented with more information about God and reject it in favor of a very different idea, now defined as not Trinitarian, then now they no longer worship the true God but a god of their own imagining.
J.R-, Precisely!.
Jared,
As you note, Christians, too, worship false gods in the sense you have identified. That we even as Christians continue to worship fales gods in some sense by giving in to the “-isms” of the day (that is why we have the Sacrament of Confession), does not negate the fact that we as Christians worship the One True God.
Br.C: I guess it comes down to the question of whether the Mohammedans ALWAYS worship a false god. Is their worship ALWAYS a false worship? I’d tend to say that any worship of non-Trinity would qualify.
Bro. Cadfael-, It seems to me that you would then have to define for us what Jesus meant when he said ” No man CAN serve two masters…”.
J.R.,
I’m trying to understand your point, so let me re-characterize it for you and you can tell me where I’m wrong.
You seem to be hanging your hat on the fact that Islam affirmatively rejects certain attributes of God which Christianity holds to be of central importance (e.g., the Trinity and the Incarnation). On the other hand, pre-Christian Jews and those worshiping the “unknown God” (to name just two examples) accepted what had been revealed to them about God, which was simply more limited than what has been revealed to us in our day.
Is that a fair characterization?
Erick,
I think that he meant whenever we are serving a false god, we are not serving the One True God.
This is true whenever we sin. In no way can I say that when I sin I am serving the One True God, but it would also not be fair to say that I believe the One True God no longer exists. Why do I continue to offend a God I know to be all-loving, all-powerful, all-just, all-merciful, all-everything? St. Paul wrestled with that very notion in his letter to the Romans, but I don’t think it would be fair to say that St. Paul wasn’t worshiping the One True God.
Bro. Cadfael-, the first part i agree with, we are not serving the true God when we serve a false God.
That has been my contention all along, but then you make the leap to sin, and that does not follow.
If we sin(and we all do), we have an advocate with the father, Jesus Christ…(I jn 2:1).
the word WE denotes US, christians.
If on the other hand we sin ( WE in this instance being pagans)- then we DO NOT have an advocate with the father, ie. we serve another God because we die in our sins.
Erick,
I’m sorry. I really can’t follow your argument. I agree that if we (Christians) sin, we have an advocate with the Father, and that when those who do not believe in Christ sin, they do not have an advocate with the Father.
What I’m not getting is how that is relevant to our topic, so if you could explain that, I’ll try to address it.
+J.M.J+
The term “mammon” is derived from a Hebrew/Aramaic word meaning “money, riches or treasure”. There is no evidence of any ancient pagan god by that name (the idea that Mammon was a god of greed seems to first appear in Spenser’s “The Faerie Queene”). Jesus appears to personify mammon, but it was not until the Middle Ages that Christians began to speak of a “demon” called Mammon.
Jesus is basically saying that people cannot both serve God and be greedy for riches because then riches effectively becomes our “master,” and we cannot serve two masters at the same time. I don’t see how this passage could prove that Allah is not identical with the one true God; that seems like a real stretch of an interpretation.
>>>You cannot worship a mixture of truth and man made concepts and still maintain it is the same God.
Does this mean that any Catholic who has even a slightly incorrect understanding about the Trinity is not worshipping the “right” God?
I mean, we can’t see God, so we often use our thoughts and imagination to try to help us perceive Him in some vaguely intelligible way. Are those thoughts and imaginations “man made concepts” about God? Are they not all ultimately insufficient, since God is incomprehensible?
Taken to its logical conclusion, no one can therefore worship the true God because we all have man made concepts mixed in with the truths we learn from the Church. Yet if our human limitations do not prevent us worshipping the true God, then perhaps the human limitations of Islam don’t prevent Muslims either. Where exactly do we draw the line and say, “If you believe *this* technically incorrect thing about God then you can still worship Him, but if you believe *that* technically incorrect thing it cancels everything out and your worship gets diverted to some false god somewhere, whether you like it or not”?
In Jesu et Maria,
I don’t know Bro. Cadfael, you brought up the sin problem.
Correct me if i’m wrong, but you seemed to say that when we sin we are in a sense worshiping a different god. Is that correct?.
If that’s what you say( and i could be wrong)- then my contention is no, we don’t. We became children of God by faith, and yes we all fail Him, but unlike the pagans we have a way out because we are under His covering (being that we have faith in the One true God).
So i fail to see what sin has to do with it.
We cannot serve two masters, and anyone who attemps to is like a thief trying to get in through a window as opposed to the door(Jesus).
I don’t know if that made sense Bro. Cadfael.
The sum of the matter is (to me), no salvation?, then false god.
Rosemarie-, having a slightly incorrect understanding of the trinity is a whole lot different than rejecting it all together as a pagan notion.
That is what Islam teaches.
Can the Muslims then accuse christians of a concept of paganism as to God, and at the same time worship the same God?. Have you ever heard of the logical law of non-contradiction?.
Erick,
I did not intend to bring up the sin problem, as you call it. Someone else brought up worshiping mammon, and I simply pointed out my understanding that sin and worshiping mammon were, in effect, one and the same thing. Since we all sin, we all worship mammon.
But Rosemarie has restated my point (or at least my intended point) in this regard in a much clearer fashion.
You guys are a bit over my head here, so excuse me for staying out of the discussion proper. I would just e-mail this to Jared quietly, but I don’t have my computer properly configured to e-mail from the links.
Jared, you have such impeccable spelling and grammar. Why don’t you remember that the “Callormeens” were “Calormenes”? I think you should immediately sit back down with the Chronicles of Narnia in (mock) penance… 🙂
That said, I’m quite sure you and J.R. are correct: the Calormenes represented Muslims. Lewis was certainly prescient in recognizing that Islam and Christianity would ultimately clash in such a cataclysmic manner; I think it’s pretty clear from the last few years that that’s how things will eventually shake down.
Lewis was certainly prescient in recognizing that Islam and Christianity would ultimately clash in such a cataclysmic manner
As was Chesterton:
“The Moslems are not without creditable qualities in the least – courage, sobriety, hardiness, hospitality, personal dignity, intense religious belief. These are fine qualities. The thing we will not face is the enormous fact that they have along with all this, not merely from personal sin, but by ingrained, avowed, and convinced philosophy, another quality: a total disregard of human life, whether it is their own or other people’s. Therefore our civilization is and must be at war with them, and that war is a religious war, or, if you prefer the term, a philosophical war.”
Bro Cadfael, what work is that from? I’d like to read it.
Kasia,
It is from a 1903 piece called “The Nature of a Religious War” (republished in the August 2002 issue of The Chesterton Review).
Add
Hillaire Belloc to the list as well:
“It has always seemed to me possible, and even probable, that there would be a resurrection of Islam and that our sons or our grandsons would see the renewal of that tremendous struggle between the Christian culture and what has been for more than a thousand years its greatest opponent…. The future always comes as a surprise but political wisdom consists in attempting at least some partial judgment of what that surprise may be. And for my part I cannot but believe that a main unexpected thing of the future is the return of Islam. Since religion is at the root of all political movements and changes and since we have here a very great religion physically paralysed but morally intensely alive, we are in the presence of an unstable equilibrium which cannot remain permanently unstable.”
and this:
“We thought of its (Islam’s) religion as a sort of fossilised thing about which we need not trouble. That was almost certainly a mistake. We shall almost certainly have to reckon with Islam in the near future. Perhaps if we lose our Faith it will arise.”
Brother Cadfael,
That last sentence is the scariest. Islam is arising just as the West looses its Faith.
I think you understand my position well enough. The key point though, about which I am closer to being certain than some other things like what I have said regarding the Jews, is that the Muslims reject the divinity of two persons of the Trinity, while the first person they redefine to such an extent, including denying that he is a Father, that I doubt he can no longer be called God the Father. If they have rejected the divine existance of all three persons of the Trinity how can they be said to worship the One True God? There is not even a substantial historical connection to Christianity or Judaism, just this guy imagining a god who does not exist and identifying him with the God of the Jews and Christians.
J.R.,
The Hillaire Belloc link I provided above provides some interesting tidbits about Islam’s origins that I think are at odds with your comments, but I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on that after reading them.
Kasia: Alas, my copies of the Narnia books are back in Wisconsin and I in the (physical and spiritual) desert of Los Angeles. It appears my penance is wander in this wilderness without those books.
But, you’re right, of course. I should’ve looked it up on the internet.
Mea culpa.
Jared, I avoided the problem by not refering to anything by name.
Br. Cadfael,
Belloc acknowledged that Islam did not come from within Chiristianity but from outside. He seems to have assumed that the Allah of these religious copy-cats is the same God as that of the Christians, but I think he may have been wrong.
J.R.,
What causes you to say that he described it as coming from without? I have not read it closely, but among other things, he says that it should be treated as a Christian heresy.
I also found it oddly amusing that he notes (in the 1930’s!) that there have been many recent exhortations about all that Christianity has in common with Islam (if one listens to John, I thought that all came about with V2 and the last two popes!).
You may be right, but you obviously picked up something in the text that I missed when I skimmed it.
Y’know, this is kinda off topic and kinda not. The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe made so much money that Walden Media is now definitely going forward with plans to make the other Narnia books into films. (This, says my wife, is cool on account of she thinks I’d make a good Prince Caspian–of which I’m not so sure they’d EVER cast me, but that’s neither here nor there so, whatever.) This gets me to thinking: given the fact that Lewis wrote in the allegorical sense in which he did, will the producers have the guts to create those films that include, shall we say, not so flattering depictions of the CalormENEs (thanks, Kasia … mea culpa)? Or, in creating them, will they alter their depiction?
Ok, it’s totally off-topic. I blame JR Stoodley. (Vestri mendum!)
Jared,
One senses that you know the answer in asking the question, but I’d have to guess the latter.
Since they couldn’t even keep the Christian message intact and completely obliterated the women should not fight in wars thing I doubt they will do anything that will be seen as remotely anti-Muslim. I suspect they will not make The Horse and His Boy or The Last Battle at all. The former is too anti-Muslim/anti-Arab and the second in addition to this is too overtly religious for these [unchristian word]s to even consider. What little role the Calormenes play in the other books can be eliminated, unless I am forgetting something major.
Brother Cadfael,
It is an interesting thing. Belloc calls Islam a heresy that removed all that was distinctly Christian from Christianity and that was unique in having its origin outside of Christianity. I fail to see why Belloc felt it appropriate to call it a Christian heresy at all if it has its origin outside of Christendom and only superficial connections to Christianity. I also don’t see why he thought its military success is what made it its own religion rather than just a heresy, since the ideology didn’t change and other heresies have had military success in the past (think of Arianism and, dare I mention it, Protestantism).
I’m also not sure the great age of Islam makes it so unique. The (so-called at least, I won’t get into that debate here) Nestorians and Monophysites are still with us, not to mention Neo-Arian sects, Eastern Orthodoxy, and the various kinds of Protestantism and its offshoots. The “RadTrad” schismatic and the liberal syncretist Catholic are not new things either. The details of all these situations (like the size of the group, continuity, age, etc.) all differ in certain ways but the general trend is that there is nothing new under the sun. Old heresies and pagan religions don’t die (at least for long) and new ones are generally copies of old ones.
Fr. Fessio’s comments on dialogue with Muslims is right on, in my opinion. J.R., I think he articulates something similar to what you have been articulating quite well (although I don’t know that he draws the same conclusion you do):
“Yet there is a crucial underlying principle that needs to be enunciated. Christianity and Islam make incompatible truth claims. Despite the difficulty in determining who can speak authoritatively for Christianity or for Islam, there are elements of belief common to all Christians which are incompatible with elements of belief common to all Muslims. The two most obvious and most fundamental are the Trinity and the Incarnation.”
An excellent treatment of the broader topic of B16’s speech and the reaction to it can be found here.
+J.M.J+
>>>Rosemarie-, having a slightly incorrect understanding of the trinity is a whole lot different than rejecting it all together as a pagan notion.
That is what Islam teaches.
That is also what Judaism teaches. Does that mean that Jews worship a false god?
Okay, let’s get down to the bottom line: Where does the Church officially, infallibly declare that Jews and Muslims don’t worship the same God as we do? I’m talking official Magisterial documents, not the writings of some Catholic or a priest or whatever. What do the popes and ecumenical Councils say?
AFAIK, there are no official Magisterial declarations explicitly stating that. Yet some posters here are defending that notion as though it were infallibly-defined Catholic truth. You guys obviously think that this is an earth-shatteringly important issue, yet the Church has apparently never officially declared anything on this matter.
In fact, the statements that the Vatican has made on the topic actually state the contrary position. Pope St. Gregory VII, the Second Vatican Council, the 1993 Catechism and Pope John Paul II all explicitly state that Muslims do worship the Creator God, the God of Abraham. Granted, none of those citations quite qualifies as infallible, yet there is evidently no infallible teaching to the contrary, either, so what they said is about as authoritative a teaching as we have at this very moment.
I know you’ve all got your personal opinions, but none of you are the Magisterium. In the end, I must trust the Popes and ecumenical Councils over anyone’s personal opinions.
In Jesu et Maria,
Great, I didn’t close the italics correctly. Hope this works.
Rosemarie-, O.K, i understand your point. But again, and i don’t mean to “beat a dead man”, but if neither of those gods (allah, and the god of the jews) saves, then(1) what do they do?.
For all practical purposes, when it comes to eternity,(2) what would be the difference between worshiping those gods and say, the god of the Jehovah Witnesses?.
Bro. Cadfael-, You seem to be real good at this, do you know if The Magisterium has spoken ever on the subject of who it was that Abraham was asked of God to sacrifice?
In other words has The Magisterium ever denied- or confirmed that it was Isaac.
The reason for my question is that if The Magisterium has confirmed that it was Isaac, then that in itself lays to rest this notion that the Muslims worship the same god as Abraham.
As you may well know, Islam denies this affirming it was rather his brother Ishmael.
Rosemarie,
The issue is does the Magisterium have the authority to say what any person believes. I don’t think so. It has the authority to teach the Catholic Faith and morality, not to proclaim what some guy on the street thinks. I am not an expert but it seems the Magisterium my have gotton it wrong about what the Nestorians believed, and now JPII signed a paper with them saying that our actual beliefs about Christ do not conflict. Some are saying it is a similar situation with the Monophysites. The Church was wrong about what a group of people believed, but of course accurate about the Catholic Faith in their rebuttal of the percieved heresy.
Similarly the Magisterium may be wrong about whether the Muslims worship God or not. I have yet to be persuaded by Br. Cadfael or anyone else that statements by the Magisterium on this issue demand any particular assent.
I do not claim to have infallible Magisterial teaching behind me on this issue. Again, I don’t think the Magisterium has particular authority in this area. I do think that we should be able to have a friendly debate on matters that have not been authoritatively taught about by the Magisterium.
Erick,
do you know if The Magisterium has spoken ever on the subject of who it was that Abraham was asked of God to sacrifice?
In other words has The Magisterium ever denied- or confirmed that it was Isaac.
The reason for my question is that if The Magisterium has confirmed that it was Isaac, then that in itself lays to rest this notion that the Muslims worship the same god as Abraham.
As you may well know, Islam denies this affirming it was rather his brother Ishmael.
I know of know magisterial text other than Genesis for this point, and I can’t imagine why there would be one, since Genesis is clear that it was Isaac. The Magisterium does not usually waste time making clear what is not seriously disputed.
I have no knowledge as to what Islam claims in this regard, nor is it relevant to the point in any way that I can see. Islam is wrong — very wrong — on the most important tenets of Christianity. They still worship (imperfectly, yes) the God of Abraham, the Creator of all things.
Bro. Cadfael-,…”nor is it relevant to the point in any way”
Really Bro. Cadfael?, how about this: if the god of Islam says it was Ishmael, and the God of Abraham says it was Isaac, how are both gods the same?.
Logically speaking ,”A” can never equals non- “A”, no matter how you slice it Bro. Cadfael!.
Your theological view on this leaves you with a god who contradicts himself ( which i doubt you seriously believe).
that’s why your staement about “imperfectly worship”, is flawed.
We are not talking about Islam worshiping the God of Abraham in an imperfect way( whatever that means)- we are talking about Islam worshiping Another god altogether…another because he contradicts what Jehovah said to Abraham. Again, “A” can never equals non “A”.
Erick,
It is not God who is different. I don’t know how many different ways I can say this, Muslims do not understand many of God’s attributes, ones far more central to Christianity than the identity of Isaac and Ishmael. (In other words, you can point to their denial of the Trinity and the Incarnation and make the point much better than pointing to errors about the identity of Abraham’s son.) But the fact that Muslims don’t understand God, does not make Him the wrong God, it doesn’t make him a different God.
Whoever wrote the Koran had more than just that confused, Erick. They place words in “Allah’s” mouth that’d make Joseph Smith blush. Among other things, the character of “Allah”:
-denies Christ’s Divinity and His Sonship and sets up the straw man that God cannot have a consort so He can’t have a Son,
-denies the Trinity (obviously, if he denies the Divinity of the Son, this is inherrerant) in such a way that reveals the author’s misunderstanding of the Christian doctrine (“Allah” seems to think the Trinity consists, in our minds, of Father, Son, and Virgin Mary)
-denies the Death of Christ (it only “seemed so”)
…and on and on.
The last thing (in importance but obviously not linear time) the Koran gets wrong is which son Abraham was told to sacrifice.
Bro. Cadfael-, That leaves you in a state of “passive universalism”, for then we must conclude that All the pseudo-christian cults worship the same god imperfectly.
Your statement as to worshiping a different god as opposed to the wrong god makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. How much different must it be before it becomes wrong?.
If i worship a different god than you, am i wrong?.
If your answer is no, then the burden of proof lies on your shoulders to explain how i am not wrong in worshiping a different god.
If your answer is yes then you’ve just contradicted yourself.
I just showed that a god that contradicts himself is not god, the Muslims and the Jews are either both wrong or one of them is right. Bro. Cadfael, they cannot both be right!, for this is irrational.
Bro. Cadfael-, the reason i went back to Abraham and the historical context of Isaac’s almost sacrifice is to show that even before trinitarian and incarnation doctrines, the Muslems were already wrong.
Some on this site seem to think the rejection of those and other doctrines is the reason for this “imperfect” worship, well i showed that even before these doctrines became rejected by Islam, they were already wrong. Yes, wrong Bro. Cadfael, if i told you 2+2= 3, it would take a lot to convince my math teacher that i just came up with a “different” answer.
Islam gets a failing grade just as i would have, not for coming up with a different answer. but for being wrong!.
I agree – they basically took the Christianity (and everything else that might have been remotely un-PC) right on out of LWW. And can I just say that I HATED Liam Neeson as Aslan? I like Liam Neeson ordinarily, but what WAS that schlock?!
Anyway, I think J.R. is right that they won’t even make The Horse and His Boy or The Last Battle into movies. Or if they do, they’ll change the former to have a different villain (Christians, maybe?) and the latter to have a triumphant secular ending. “And they all lived happily ever after until they died, and then nothing happened because nothing happens after you die…”
Yeah, especially after Kinsey, the thought of Liam Neeson as Aslan kinda turns my stomach too.
Still, though, I didn’t think LWW was all THAT bad. I rather liked it for the most part. I did, however, keep picturing Ray Winstone (in his Beowulf motion capture suit) whenever Mr. Beaver spoke and that “took me out” of the picture as well. But I think that’s the problem with having ANY well-known screen actors do voice-over work. You can’t help but connect the voice with the man and not the character. It’s problematic.
Erick,
We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this point. I frankly don’t understand most of your last two posts, as you jump from point to point and seem to take things as proven that simply are not from my vantage point.
But to the extent you agree with J.R., I think I understand his points, I just don’t agree. (Although I actually have two disagreements with J.R., because we also don’t agree on whether this is an appropriate topic on which the Magisterium should or can exercise its authority — a point which I assume you have little interest in, not being Catholic.)
Peace.
Bro. Cadfael-, I’m sorry you did not understand.
I think i made very good sense, since i simply employed laws of logic that we all use everyday.
It’s a proven fact that Islam teaches it was Ishmael and not Isaac who almost got sacrificed.
It’s a proven fact that the Jews believed it was Isaac and not Ishmael who almost got sacrificed.
It’s a proven fact that both groups say it was God who gave instructions for this.
It’s a proven fact that we are left with a contradiction.
It’s a proven fact that God does not contradict Himself.
It’s a proven fact that due to the law of non-contradiction, only one of these could be right( although both could be wrong).
It’s a proven fact that whoever is wrong did not hear from the true God-, ie. the god they heard from is a false god.
quite simple Bro. Cadfael!.
Erick,
I think i made very good sense, since i simply employed laws of logic that we all use everyday.
We’ll see.
It’s a proven fact that Islam teaches it was Ishmael and not Isaac who almost got sacrificed.
I’ll take your word for it.
It’s a proven fact that the Jews believed it was Isaac and not Ishmael who almost got sacrificed.
That’s what the Bible says.
It’s a proven fact that both groups say it was God who gave instructions for this.
Again, I’ll take your word on Islam/Ishmael, as I have no reason to doubt that what you’re saying is true. The Bible certainly says that God so instructed Abraham with respect to Isaac.
It’s a proven fact that we are left with a contradiction.
Yes, I will accept that what the Muslims believe God instructed Abraham contradicts what the Jews and Christians believe God instructed Abraham.
It’s a proven fact that God does not contradict Himself.
Yes, but see above. God has not contradicted Himself. The Muslims have contradicted the Jews and the Christians, and vice versa, but God has not contradicted Himself. (This is your first logical mistake.)
It’s a proven fact that due to the law of non-contradiction, only one of these could be right( although both could be wrong).
Yes, see above.
It’s a proven fact that whoever is wrong did not hear from the true God-, ie. the god they heard from is a false god.
Wrong. Logically speaking, there is another possiblity, namely, they both heard from true God, but one (or both) of them heard wrongly.
Br. Cadfael: Quick question (but probably not a quick answer) and possibly off-topic … in your opinion, who–if anyone–appeared to Mohammed?
As far as I can tell, these are the possibilities:
1: Gabriel appeared but Mohammed got it wrong … thus all of the Koran lies and mistakes and straw men.
2: A demon under the guise of Gabriel … thus a religion in opposition to the Truth.
3: No one and Mohammed made it up.
4: No one but Mohammed thought he saw someone … making him a lunatic (literally, considering the moon-god connection).
5: No one but Mohammed’s followers made it all up knowingly.
6: No one but Mohammed’s followers thought that someone did and “extrapolated” … badly.
7: Mohammed didn’t exist and all was invented by later Arabs.
Did I miss any?
It may or may not have any relevance, as I said, but, if the answer is number two (and I’ve been leaning more and more toward that option) then MAYBE it is relevant to the identity of the Mohammedans’ “Allah.”
Once again, not to say you’re wrong. I know I’ve said that before and it seems like I’m contradicting myself, but I’m seriously just searching. That’s it.
Jared,
#1 and #7 seem the least likely to me, but I don’t know that I could pick a favorite between the rest.
As to #2, why couldn’t a demon inspire false worship of the true God? It’s been a while since I read the Screwtape Letters, but…
Bro. Cadfael- I wonder how many examples you could provide of God speaking directly to an individual and having the same individual getting the wrong message?.
Your lack of admitting defeat on this topic has got you doing “cart wheels”.
Your lack of following my line of argumentation is one of volition, not understanding.
Erick,
Billions, no trillions, of people across the globe and throughout history have failed to comprehend abundantly clear messages from God, delivered in whatever form. (See Jared’s list for even more possibilities.)
Your “logical” argument had a gaping hole in it, don’t blame me for driving a Mack truck through it!
(And I don’t do cart wheels — too easy to get hurt!)
Bro. Cadfael-, Your Mack truck must only operate with a V-6 engine, because it’s weak.
Very weak!.
“…delivered in whatever form…”- won’t do. It must fall under the same conditions Abraham got it.
+J.M.J+
J.R. Stoodley writes:
>>> I am not an expert but it seems the Magisterium my have gotton it wrong about what the Nestorians believed
The Magisterium condemned the teaching of Nestorius, and that condemnation remains. Modern Nestorians, however, apparently may hold a view of the nature of Christ that differs somewhat from Nestorius’ heresy. the teachings of a religion can change over time, after all; perhaps this happened with them. That does not mean the Magisterium was wrong to condemn Nestorius, however.
The situation with the Monophysites is similar. The Magisterium condemned the heresy of Eutyches, but the Oriental Orthodox today claim that they do not believe in what Eutyches taught. That’s why the Church is trying to hammer out a theological understanding with them now. Again, this does not mean that the Magisterium was wrong.
>>>Similarly the Magisterium may be wrong about whether the Muslims worship God or not.
Even if that were so, who are you or I to judge whether the Magisterium is wrong about anything? That is my basic point; if we go against what the Popes, Catechism and an Ecumenical Council say on this matter, then we set ourselves up as judge over the Church’s teaching authority. Who gave us such authority over the Church of the living God, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth? What right do we have to say that the Popes, Catechism and an Ecumenical Council are all wrong?
That’s why I have to trust what the Church says on this matter. If it somehow turns out I’m wrong then at least I erred on the side of fidelity to the Church.
Look, I’m no fan of Islam. I lived in NYC on 9/11, I felt the terror and grief, as well as some anger toward the hijackers. In my darker moments I’ve been tempted to say, “Those Muslims don’t worship the God I believe in, so the heck with them!” But I know what the Popes, Catechism and an Ecumenical Council have said about it and I don’t want to go against that, regardless of how I feel.
Erick writes
>>>if the god of Islam says it was Ishmael, and the God of Abraham says it was Isaac, how are both gods the same?.
If the “god of Islam” is a false god, then he says nothing because he didn’t exist. The Koran is the words of men, not God.
>>>Bro. Cadfael-, That leaves you in a state of “passive universalism”, for then we must conclude that All the pseudo-christian cults worship the same god imperfectly.
Universalism is the belief that there is no Hell and that all men shall be saved in the end. How does saying that Muslims have an imperfect understanding of God translate into Universalism? It does not; just because they offer natural worship to the Creator does not mean that their religion is salvific or that they will be saved. Christ saves through His Church; Islam does not save.
>>>It’s a proven fact that whoever is wrong did not hear from the true God-, ie. the god they heard from is a false god.
You’re not considering a third possibility – the Koran was not inspired by any deity, True or false, but was a work of a man named Mohammed. The falsehoods contained therein are the words of a man, not of God or a false god.
When the Koran says that Ishmael was sacrificed, no deity is saying that at all, just a man. Hence the argument that the deity speaking in the Koran is false because he speaks falsehoods falls apart, because no deity speaks in the Koran. It’s just the fallible words of a man placed in God’s mouth.
In Jesu et Maria,
>>>Similarly the Magisterium may be wrong about whether the Muslims worship God or not.
Sorry folks, but the issue is not that. Because Magesterium does not constitute like 3 popes, who by comparison to the previous ones, where quite,uh let us say critical. And many of those are saints as well.
Rosemarie-, …”the koran…was the work of a man named Mohammed…”- Wrong again Rosemarie, Muhammed could neither write nor read. Get your facts straight.
The best that we could tell it was an “angel” who brought it to Muhammed.
This “imperfect” angel i guess, according to your theory, must have been a true angel…he just was “heard” wrong.
Erick,
You seem to be having a bad day. That Mohammed could neither read nor write is quite beside the point. He could, quite easily, had someone else write for him. He could have made the whole thing up. He could have (see Jared’s list again).
I think you owe Rosemarie an apology.
I’ve followed this discussion with considerable interst. But it seems to have devolved into a personal war between some of my favorite Jimmy Akin posters.
Maybe we could save at least some of that for the next highly controversial post!
🙂
Some Day,
Sorry folks, but the issue is not that. Because Magesterium does not constitute like 3 popes, who by comparison to the previous ones, where quite,uh let us say critical. And many of those are saints as well.
In addition to just “like 3 popes” you have an Ecumenical Council making the point in (1) a dogmatic constitution on the Church [the most authoritative type of document issued by an Ecumenical Council], and in a document specifically (and only) directed to the topic, and you have the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church.
It is the Magisterium doing the teaching, here, not “like 3 popes.”
And I’m sorry, the Magisterium does not spend that much time repeating itself unless they are competent to deal with the issue and they mean to deal with it authoritatively. Read each of the texts carefully — there is no equivocation, the statement is clearly and firmly made.
Other Popes, and other saints, have addressed Islam in not-favorable-terms. OK. So have Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI. I’m not aware of a single other Pope, or a single other ecumenical council, or a single other magisterial document, a single Doctor of the Church, or even a single saint who has claimed that the Muslims worship a different God.
If this is as clear as some would have us believe, surely that evidence has to be out there somewhere, doesn’t it?
JD,
It’s late, I’m tired, I’m getting cranky — good advice!
Bro. Cadfael- That you guys are ignorant of the history of Islam, and have to retort to “well…maybe he could this and that” has a lot to do with the discussion.
The Koran did not come into written form until way after Muhammed died!.
Rosemarie, if i insulted you, i apologize from the bottom of my heart.
Aquinas had this to say in his “Reasons for the Faith Against Muslim Objections”:
But if someone does not admit the omnipotence of God, we do not attempt to argue with him in this work. We are here arguing against Muslims and others who admit the omnipotence of God.
He seems to assume that Muslims are dealing with the same God, although I’ve never seen him address the issue directly.
I might step out of line here and there is a high probability on this being wrong, but I’ll stand by it. The Muslims do not believe in the omnipotence of their god. Why?
Here is an example:
That month where they fast, ramadan I believe, they can pig out at night because Allah can’t see at night what they are doing. That is a limitatation right there.
Now here is another thing. They aren’t heretics, unless you consider them heretical to the Jews, and they are not Christian, so they are ispso facto pagans.
It’s a proven fact that Islam teaches it was Ishmael and not Isaac who almost got sacrificed
The Islamic tradition of later years that Ishmael was the one sacrificed is not absolute. The Qur’an does not specify the name of the sacrificial son, and hence Muslim historians disagree on this subject.
+J.M.J+
Erick writes:
>>>Rosemarie-, …”the koran…was the work of a man named Mohammed…”- Wrong again Rosemarie,
Where was I wrong the first time? 🙂
>>>Muhammed could neither write nor read. Get your facts straight.
As Brother Cadfael rightly points out, Mohammed could have had a scribe to record his ramblings (and no doubt his followers compiled his teachings after his death).
However, that is neither here nor there. The point is that someone wrote down the Koran, even if it wasn’t Mohammed. So my argument still applies to that someone (or possibly multiple authors) – the Koran is the work of men, not the word of a deity.
>>>Rosemarie, if i insulted you, i apologize from the bottom of my heart.
It’s okay.
>>>Now here is another thing. They aren’t heretics, unless you consider them heretical to the Jews, and they are not Christian, so they are ispso facto pagans.
Pope Pius XI’s Act of Consecration of the Human Race to Jesus Christ King contains a line which says: “Be Thou King of all those who are still involved in the darkness of idolatry or of Islamism, and refuse not to to draw them all into the light and kingdom of God.” (I’ve seen some modern versions of the prayer where that line is missing, BTW).
Anyway, that prayer at least seems to make a distinction between Islam and paganism.
In Jesu et Maria,
As I would too.
Muslims are the only pagans that are blowing themselves up and blowing things up.
Or they are so bad that they command special notice.
Muslims are the only pagans that are blowing themselves up and blowing things up.
They are not pagans. They adore the one God. As to blowing things up, the U.S.A. is the world leader in that.
JR S.: Regarding CS Lewis’s The Last Battle … No, I’m 100% certain that the Callormeens are meant to represent the Mohammedans and that Tash is Allah.
Aravis says she is going to offer sacrifice to a goddess before her wedding. The Calormeens are therefore polytheists.
Right, Mary. In fact, in “The Last Battle”, Aslan essentially tells the Calormene, Emeth, that Tash is Satan.
“As to blowing things up, the U.S.A. is the world leader in that.”
Wow, I’m just devastated by that. It’s so impressive when it comes from an anonymous troll who doesn’t have the tiny onions it takes to use a handle when he posts.
The Calormenes are not Muslims, they just represent Muslims at least in The Last Battle I’m still wondering if the ape represented the Pope, in which case tisk tisk to C.S. Lewis.
About Islam, let this be clear, the Magisterium has taught on this issue, saying that the Muslims worship the same God as us. If it was within the scope of the authority of the Magisterium to do this, then the matter is settled at least as far as we laity are conserned. If however the teaching is not within the scope of the authority of the Magisterium then the teaching matters little and we can come to our own conclusions. The question is, which is the case?
About Nestorians, from what I have read Nestorius denied Mary the title of Theotokos. Catholic theologians reasoned out that this must mean Jesus was two persons rather than one, but apparently Nestorius and his followers never taught and may never have believed this. The Nestorian heresy as it was perceived was denounced and Mary proclaimed Theotokos, but it may be that the Nestorians never believed the key point that has defined them to the West for centuries.
If someone knows more than me feel free to correct me of course, but even if there is no past example to point to (except past statements about Islam) the issue remains whether the Magisterium has the authority to say what other non-Catholics believe and worship. I do not see why some seem so certain the Church has this authority, since it is not at all clear the subject is a part of the Catholic faith or morality.
bill912,
In fact, in “The Last Battle”, Aslan essentially tells the Calormene, Emeth, that Tash is Satan..
Right. The unavoidable conclusion is that the Allah worshiped by most Muslims is Satan, but some Muslims may have the worship given to Allah accounted as worship of God. If this was not C.S. Lewis’ position then again he messed up royally because that is definitly the message that comes through.
I myself do not hold that the Allah of Islam is necessarily Satan at least for most Muslims, though I suspect Satan has had an awfully large roal in the origin and history of Islam, and continues to do so to this day. Anyone want to argue that the Lord of Al Qaeda is the God we worship? I didn’t think so.
Another thought occurs to me. I’m surprised I didn’t think of it earlier. Don’t Muslims say that those who believe in the Trinity do not believe in Allah? If this is so, it is even more proof that they reject the God of the Christians (the one true God) in favor of a distinctly different god.
Nestorius essentially denied the hypostatic union. He taught that Mary provided “a fleshly garment” that Christ assumed.
“On Christmas Day of the year 428…Nestorius… stepped into the pulpit of his cathedral to deliver a sermon against Mary’s maternity of the Incarnate God: ‘…the creature did not bear the Creator, but the man, who is the instrument of the Godhead. The Holy Spirit did not place the Word, but He provided for Him, from the blessed Virgin, a temple which He might inhabit…He who was formed in the womb of Mary was not God Himself, but God assumed him’….Far from being God’s mother, she was more like His valet.” –Warren Carroll, “History of Christendom, Vol. II, pp. 92-93.
+J.M.J+
>>>Anyone want to argue that the Lord of Al Qaeda is the God we worship?
Islamicists may offer natural worship to the true God, yet they certainly do Him no honor when they sin, especially when they (falsely) claim that He blesses their sin. Bin Laden and his followers may pay lip service to the God of Abraham but their terrorist activities are still evil and displeasing to the God of Abraham. They praise Him with their lips but their hearts are far from Him.
In Jesu et Maria,
Muslims adore one god. So do the Zoraster people.
Pagans.
Now if Rosemarie is correct, then muslims are some sort of black mass people, because they know God and sin against Him on purpose.
But anyhow, they can’t be worst than the jews.
They are so similar. Just that we have been taught to hate the muslims and feel sorry for the jews.
+J.M.J+
>>>Don’t Muslims say that those who believe in the Trinity do not believe in Allah?
AFAIK, most Muslims mistakenly believe that Christians are tritheists. Based on a certain passage in the Koran, many of them are convinced that we worship three persons as gods: Allah, Jesus and Mary. That’s what many Muslims think our “trinity” is. So I don’t think they would say that; rather they would say that Christians are wrong for worshipping other gods alongside Allah (there’s something in the Koran to that effect, as well).
Of course, it’s hard to generalize about such a diverse religion with so many competing mullahs and imams teaching different things. But that is the general impression I got from studying Islam.
In Jesu et Maria,
They are just haters.
+J.M.J+
>>>Now if Rosemarie is correct, then muslims are some sort of black mass people, because they know God and sin against Him on purpose.
I must politely ask that you not put words into my mouth, Some Day.
First of all, I was specifically talking about radical, violent Islamists, particularly those in Al Qaeda (which I do think is at least in part a religious cult, BTW). I would not presume to judge the hearts of *all* Muslims because I simply don’t have the omniscience necessary for that.
Second, are Muslims brazenly sinning against God with full knowledge of the evil they commit, or are they sinning in ignorance because of a faulty religious upbringing? The Church teaches that ignorance can lessen the seriousness of ones sin.
I believe that many Muslims are good, sincere people who really want to serve Allah. Unfortunately, they belong to a false religion and serve Him without truly knowing Him. Nor can they offer Him the supernatural worship He desires. Their religion cannot save them; only Jesus can.
In Jesu et Maria,
Rosemarie,
What about educated Muslims and those in this country, who for the most part know darn well what the Trinity is and still reject it. I must say it is the same for the Jews. If they worship a distinctly non-Trinitarian God how could they be said to worship the Trinitarian God. God is Trinitarian. It is not some minor detail pertaining to God, it is who He is. If you worship a God who is in no way three persons you do not worship the God who exists.
Again, if you have no received the revelation that the one God is three Persons then that is another matter.
+J.M.J+
>>>But anyhow, they can’t be worst than the jews.
*Sigh* Well, I don’t agree with that but it’s about time to go to bed now. This whole discussion is beyond tedious. Good night.
In Jesu et Maria,
+J.M.J+
Okay, just one more:
>>>What about educated Muslims and those in this country, who for the most part know darn well what the Trinity is and still reject it.
Why do you assume that Muslims in the US would know that? Because they are around a lot of Christians? They also come into contact with dhimmi Christians in Muslim countries, yet they still harbor mistaken beliefs about Christianity.
If their Koran tells them that Christians worship Jesus and Mary beside Allah, then they believe it. If we say we don’t, they could very well dismiss it by saying “The Koran says you do therefore you do.”
>>>I must say it is the same for the Jews. If they worship a distinctly non-Trinitarian God how could they be said to worship the Trinitarian God.
Again, the Second Vatican Council, the Catechism and many Popes have said that Jews worship the same God as us. If they say it that’s good enough for me; who am I to tell them they’re wrong?
Also, many Jews do misunderstand the Trinity. I’ve heard some Jews say, in reference to Christ, “We don’t believe, as Christians do, that a man can become God.” Now, that clearly betrays a misunderstanding of Christianity; we do not believe that Jesus is a man who became God!
You’d be surprised how many misunderstandings there are in Judaism about Christian theology. Just because they grow up around Christians doesn’t mean they understand Christian beliefs.
For that matter, there are plenty of nominal Christians – including Catholics – out there who don’t understand Christianity because of shoddy catechesis. What then can we say about Jews, who received no Christian religious education at all?
In Jesu et Maria,
Rosemarie,
You seem like a kind person, so maybe that is why you don’t bash the muslims outright.
I know ignorance can excuse mortal sin.
But being ignorant on purpose cannot.
Even though I don’t have the books with me, I seem to recall the Calormenes saying something like “In the name of Tash the irresistible, the inexorable,” or something like that (which is like the whole “In the name of Allah, the … something and the … something else”). They also say “may he live for ever and ever” (kinda like “peace be unto him”) or something like that when they mention one of their authorities names. Both of these are very close to some of the verbal cues used by Mohammedans. (How is it that I remember the fake ones but not the real ones?)
Now, it’s possible that Lewis didn’t only have Mohammedans in mind when writing about the Calormenes. In fact, this god seems to have some of the same qualities as a few other pagan deities. (Once again, according to many historians, of the same name by which the moon god went by in pagan Mecca.) The stone god of the Aztecs, for example, who is a stone serpent (whose other symbol is a crescent moon) seems to have a bit in common with Tash … and Allah, as well.
I could go on but I’d probably be rambling. Again. Still.
Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God.
— 1 John 4:7
Enough of the hit and run simplistic anonymous stuff. Geez.
Love is patient, love is kind. It is not rude, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.
Some Day,
You seem like a kind person, so maybe that is why you don’t bash the muslims outright.
I know ignorance can excuse mortal sin.
But being ignorant on purpose cannot.
Excuse me. But that may be the most ignorant, uncharitable thing I’ve ever seen you post. In fact, it may be the most ignorant, uncharitable thing I’ve seen any of the regular, faithful posters post.
No Bro,
I am not bashing Rose. The first part refers to the fact if you say something against muslims she’ll defend’em. I am not going to judge that.
The second part refers to her post that said ignorance excuses sin.
Some Day,
My bad. Sorry.
Luke 22:36 “He said to them, ‘But now one who has a money bag should take it, and likewise a sack, and one who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one.'”
Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.
— Eph. 4:2-3
John 2:15 “He made a whip out of cords and drove them all out of the temple area, with the sheep and oxen, and spilled the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables.”
Deus Vult!
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.
Nice scripture quotes. All of them true and admirable. What does this have to do with the discussion? These passages are not opposed to each other but rather are part of a whole. Using them as a form of argument is pointless. They do not nullify each other. Both strains point to Christ.
Anon, explain yourself or be silent. You are just wasting combox space.
Stop it already!
You want the false peace of man and not that of God.
Peace is tranquility in the Divine Order of the Universe. So if you want peace you also want war, because to pay for the sins against God and the metaphysical order, there is a neccesity of destruction of evil, and a purification of the good. In essence, the punishment and triumph profetized by Our Lady in Fatima.
1 Kings 18:40 “Then Elijah said to them, “Seize the prophets of Baal. Let none of them escape!” They were seized, and Elijah had them brought down to the brook Kishon and there he slit their throats.”
JRS: I agree with you. It’s annoying. My aim is simply to show that pacifism is not Christian and illustrate just how annoying it can be.
Mr. Anonymous Scripture Poster needs to read this: http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/09/selfdefense_in_.html
All Scripture is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.
2 Kings 9: 32-37: Jehu looked up to the window and shouted, “Who is on my side? Anyone?” At this, two or three eunuchs looked down toward him. “Throw her down,” he ordered. They threw her down, and some of her blood spurted against the wall and against the horses. Jehu rode in over her body and, after eating and drinking, he said: “Attend to that accursed woman and bury her; after all, she was a king’s daughter.”
But when they went to bury her, they found nothing of her but the skull, the feet, and the hands. They returned to Jehu, and when they told him, he said, “This is the sentence which the LORD pronounced through his servant Elijah the Tishbite: ‘In the confines of Jezreel dogs shall eat the flesh of Jezebel. The corpse of Jezebel shall be like dung in the field in the confines of Jezreel, so that no one can say: This was Jezebel.'”
Some Day: agreed.
Anonymous: Yup, but these are all scriptures, too. It doesn’t help hash this out. You could copy and paste the whole Bible if you wanted; it still wouldn’t answer the question at hand.
Anon,
I would whack you with a stick if I found out you were my neighbor or something. Your quotes are of protestant spirit. AND it is a tactic of Satan.
Remember, Satan was the first to use Scripture to try to tempt Jesus.
Jared,
Tres Bien!
Catholicism is not pacafist at all.
And to think so is lack of many things.
The second comand given to man was an order to charge the enemy. First was not eat the Fruit, second to crush Satan’s head.
We aren’t the Church Militant to play pattycate.
The peace of Christ does manifest itself in words and actions. Also war is evil and the result of sin, not that it is always a sin to fight a war. I do not entirely agree with the attitude you two, Jared and Some Day, are presenting.
Anon is annoying though. The peace he or she preaches seems to be (from the little evidence here) a secular, polite peace.
“Not as the world gives [peace] do I give it.”
Any windmills left to battle here?
JRS: I wonder why you have reservations about Some Day and my attitude. Don’t forget what GK Chesterton wrote about Christian philosophy: “It gets every kind of man to fight for it, it gets every kind of weapon to fight with, it widens its knowledge of the things that are fought for and against with every art of curiosity or sympathy; but it never forgets that it is fighting. It proclaims peace on earth and never forgets why there was war in heaven.”
Since you guys semm to believe (incredibly enough) that Islam worships the same god we do, albeit imperfectly(whatever), does anyone here then denies that there is, or are religions out there who qualify as a deception of satan- as opposed to “man-made”?.
And if so, can anyone explain what the difference is?.
And if a satanic origin can be proven( according to your view)-how do we know this was not man-made as well?.
Man is either influenced by God or by the Devil.
Take your pick on Mohhomed.
Jared,
The attitude you and especially Some Day adopted there almost seemed to rejoice in the thought of violence. This is not what spiritual warfare is all about. I was not comfortible with that being left as the representation of Catholicism without some criticism.
Okay, well, not sure where you got that I was rejoicing in the thought of violence (from what I typed, anyway) but, I have to admit there is a bit of the Irish in me (“All their wars are merry” and all that). Nevertheless, it is not in violence but in the battle that joy may lie. Perhaps I am wrong, but the Chesterton poem (I believe recommended by Some Day in one of these commboxes) “Lepanto” seems to express a great joy in the battle.
Either way, that wasn’t my point to Mr. Anonymous Hit-and-Run-Away Contextless Scripture Poster.
+J.M.J+
Some Day writes:
>>>I am not bashing Rose. The first part refers to the fact if you say something against muslims she’ll defend’em.
Well I won’t always defend them, especially when they are clearly wrong (like Al Qaeda). I just don’t think it’s profitable to generalize about 1 billion people all over the world, assuming they are all this or that. As with just about any group of people, some Muslims are good and others are bad (of course, goodness doesn’t get anyone into Heaven, grace does). Some mean well while others are malevolent (terrorists in particular fall into the latter).
>>>does anyone here then denies that there is, or are religions out there who qualify as a deception of satan- as opposed to “man-made”?.
Well, Satanism and other left-hand path religions (tantra, palo mayombe, etc) would perhaps be the best contenders for that category. There may be others, but determining that would take a great deal of discernment.
As St. Augustine said, God made us for Himself. The religious impulse in man arises from our need for our Creator. That is why mankind has invented so many religions; it is all part of the human attempt to find God.
Has the devil had a hand in any of that religion-making? It’s certainly a possibility, especially when we see religions which sacralize acts which are objectively sinful. Then again, man is fallen, so that may simply result from original sin. That’s why I say it would take discernment to determine the inspiration behind the religion.
In Jesu et Maria,
Rosemarie-, it seems very certain to Paul that demonic beings are only too eager to decieve. In Galatians he seems to tell us to beware of angelic beings wanting to preach “another gospel”.
Permit me to dis-agree with you that for the devil to have his hand on some religions he must “sacralize acts which are objectively sinful”- I think the devil is much too smart to leave it at that!.
Deception by it’s very nature is not objectively obvious most of the time.
+J.M.J+
Erick: I agree that the devil can and does deceive people of many different religions. He even seeks to deceive Catholics, of course, and sometimes succeeds (as with false apparitions, for instance).
However, I was under the impression that you were asking whether any religion was positively “inspired” by Satan from the very start. I do believe that is a possibility, especially with left-hand path religions, but, like I said, determining that about a particular religion would take discernment. I do not think I am personally qualified to make that judgment. I could guess, but my opinion would hardly be infallible.
I think there is a difference between a man-made religion which may have been led astray by the Devil in certain areas and a truly satanically-inspired religion.
In Jesu et Maria,
Yeah it’s a gaffe, it’s a misjudgement. B16 misjudged how the Muslims would react. I’m sure he did not intend for this furore to happen. He should have known better, he could easily have put forward the same point without the use of the quote.
Yes, because we should all scrub every class for ANY quote that might choose to prove the entire point….
My 33-year-old son has a bachelors degree in Medieveal European history from UW-Madison and is now studying at Berkeley in California for a Ph.D in European history. He hopes to teach on a college level. He has been baptized Catholic and attended Catholic school for 12 years. He doesn’t believe in the Catholic Church or the Bible or the REsurrection of Jesus. He only believes that Jesus was born and was only a great man.
How did this happen? How do I counter this. Can I study myself (perhaps online) at St. Thomas Aquinas College, etc.? What do you suggest. I need help desperately. I am a widow, 67-years old.
My e-mail address is: marjorie@athenet.net
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!San Luis Rey mata a esos malditos moros!!!!!!!!!
Lovely, I must say, there is not so much themes, which deserve a comment. This one is realy needful http://straponcrush.ifrance.com/
Jimmy, I don’t know if I am reading you right. But why are you critical of the Pope’s statement? I think what the Pope said reflects reality. A lot of people will turn the blind eye, the Pope didn’t, what he said he may have apologized for already but he never retracted his statements, he was pointing out that if I hurt with what I said, sorry, but it’s the truth.
It’s a wake up call for us stop treating Muslims as babies and start telling them that their fanatical hard liners are sowing terror among those whom they consider infidels.
Be brave enough to support our Pope.
Be brave enough to support our Pope.
Wha? This had nothing to do with ‘supporting the Pope.’ Jimmy was merely debating whether quoting a dead guy was a good idea, not whether what the Pope said about religion vs. violence was right.
so stupid