Alberto Rivera
Posted on 07/19/2014 3:22:50 PM PDT by markomalley
Muslims in Iraq entered a Catholic church in Iraq, and when they saw a statue of the Virgin Mary they destroyed it because they deemed it an idol. As we read from one report:
The militants also removed the cross from St. Ephrem’s Cathedral, the seat of the Syriac Orthodox archdiocese in Mosul, and put up the black ISIS flag in its place. They also destroyed a statue of the Virgin Mary, according to Ghazwan Ilyas, the head of the Chaldean Culture Society in Mosul, who spoke by telephone on Thursday from Mosul but seemed to have left on Friday.
The Muslims also tore out the crosses and replaced them with the antichrist black flags of Islam. Muslims are iconoclasts, that is, they hate any sort of Christian images, or any image pertaining to Christianity. They see any cross or statue as an idol. This story refutes the idea that Islam came from Catholicism, since it hates everything about the Catholic Church.
I wrote an article completely refuting this idea that the Catholic Church invented Islam and I will repost it here…
The Catholic Church did not invent Islam. I have heard this countless times, and have received innumerable messages from people, that Islam was founded by the Catholic Church. I don’t have the time to respond to every individual who tells me this assertion, so I have decided to write this essay to deal with it.
The idea that Islam was conceived by the Catholic Church is traced back to a conspiracy theorist named Alberto Rivera, a con-artist who claimed to be a Jesuit (I know how many messages I will receive about how I slandered “brother Alberto”).
Alberto Rivera
Alberto said that the “the Pope” commissioned Muhammad to do three missions:
1. Eliminate the Jews and Christians (true believers, which they called infidels).
2. Protect the Augustinian Monks and Roman Catholics.
3. Conquer Jerusalem for “His Holiness” in the Vatican.
These commands, for one thing, cannot be found in any primary account whatsoever. What is a primary account? We need to know this if we are going to understand the nature of our inquiry. When trying to reach an historical conclusion, or make historical observations, one must focus first on one type of evidence: first hand accounts, or primary sources.
An old letter, an example of primary source
A primary source is a document written in, or around the time, of the particular historical event in question, being based on eye-witness accounts and first hand materials. To use an example that we are all familiar with, I will ask a simple question: The Exodus of the Hebrew slaves from Egypt, how do we know that it happened? Because Moses, who was the leader of Israel’s liberation, wrote about it. We would never know about the Exodus, if Moses never wrote a book about it. Exodus, then, is a primary source account. Would you, then, rather read the Book of Exodus, or a modern book on the Exodus? The only way to fully comprehend the Exodus, is to read Exodus.
So then, how would we learn about the invention of Islam? We would need to read ancient documents, both Islamic and non-Islamic. We would have to read the primary source accounts. And when reading on the origins of Islam, based on the primary source accounts, we have absolutely zero substantiation for any of Rivera’s claims.
Now, Rivera says that he learned of Islam’s Catholic inventors from one Cardinal Bea. But when we research the statement that Rivera attributes to Bea, all we find are books and articles, written by anti-Catholic polemics, and not one statement from anything ever written by Bea. Therefore, to simply conclude Rivera’s quoting of Bea as factual, is both empty of scholarship and absent of any cognitive reasoning expected of the historian.
When my father exposes Obama’s family, or reveals an unknown plan of the jihadists, he does not simply claim that it is true, nor does he say that he met so and so, and so and so said such and such, and thats it. He goes to the primary sources, searching and finding documents in Arab, Israeli, American, and other records. He spends countless hours sifting through innumerable sources, trying to find reliable information on the particular subject he is writing on.
Truth is found through both will and reasoning, not sensation or exciting novelties. That the Catholic Church invented Islam, is just that, a sensational novelty. And in regards to the rest of the rubbish Alberto said in regards to Islam’s creation, there is not one piece of primary evidence (I dare anyone to show me just one).
If we are going to analyze the origins of Islam, what must be first comprehended is the innate focal point of Islamic theology: Islam is a religion of a book; it is primarily revolved around the Koran, and secondarily fixated on what interpretation Muslim authorities deduce on the Koran.
/p>
Without the Koran, there is no Islam. Therefore, in order to understand the origins of Islamic theology, one must read the Koran. And when we do, what we find is not evidence of a Catholic creation, but actually statements that are openly anti-Catholic.
One of the most quoted Koranic verses by exposers of Islam, is Surah 9:29, which states:
Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture and believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the religion of truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
But when one reads the verse in conjunction with the subsequent verses, one finds that the Christians it is commanding to war with, are in fact Catholics. Here is the full verse:
Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture and believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the religion of truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low. And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they! They have taken as lords beside Allah their rabbis and their monks and the Messiah son of Mary, when they were bidden to worship only One God. There is no god save Him. Be He glorified from all that they ascribe as partner (unto Him)! (Surah 9:29-31)
The existence of the word monks, in the verse, signifies that it is referring to Catholics, both Eastern and Western. How do we know this? Let us look to the interpretation of this verse by Abu Bakr, the successor to Muhammad, and one who was amongst the most elite of Muhammad’s companions. Before invading Syria, he declared:
You will meet people who have set themselves apart in hermitages; leave them to accomplish the purpose for which they have done this. …You will meet people who have shaved the crowns of their heads, leaving a band of hair around it. Strike them with the sword.
Those who have their hair shaven to the shape of a crown, can only be referring to Catholic monks; for the tradition behind this hairstyle, symbolizing the crown of glory given to the martyrs, and the crown of thorns placed on Christ’s head, is purely one of Catholic origin.
The first people that Abu Bakr mentions, the ones who “set themselves apart in hermitages”, were the heretical Christians, or the Arians, Nestorians, and other subscribers to false doctrines.
So, when Rivera claims that “the Pope” commissioned Muhammad to kill the Jews and the “true Christians,” the only Christians that the Koran initially commanded to kill are the Catholics. Why would the Catholics create a system that is innately adverse toward the Catholic Church? It makes no sense, and anyone who upholds such an ahistorical statement, is not committed to historical truth and reasoning, but a mere opinion that is both groundless and ignominious.
Those who believe this slanderous lie will argue that the Muslims broke off from Rome and began to fight Catholics; and to those who say this, I will ask you to bring me one primary source account that proves this claim.
Furthermore, the idea that Islam was invented by the Catholic Church is void of any evidence in the writings of the Church Fathers. In order to understand Islam’s history, we read the Koran and the Hadith; in order to understand Catholic history, we read the Church Fathers. We find absolutely nothing close to what Rivera claims in any book written by any of the Church Fathers or ancient Catholic theologians who lived closest to the early days of Islam.
In fact, in looking to the earliest Christian opinion on Islam, what we find are Catholics writing against Muhammad as a damnable heretic and enemy to Rome. One of the best examples of this are the writings of Theodore Abu Qurrah, the bishop of Harran who lived in the 9th century, when Islam was still quite a young cult.
Theodore affirmed the primacy of the Roman Church, and viewed Islam as an enemy toward the Church. On the primacy of the Church of Rome, Theodore writes:
Do you not see that St. Peter is the foundation of the church, selected to shepherd it, that those who believe in his faith will never lose their faith, and that he was ordered to have compassion on his brethren and to strengthen them? As for Christ’s words, “I prayed for you, that you not lose your faith; but you, have compassion on your brethren, at that time, and strengthen them,” [Luke 22:32-33] we do not think that he meant St. Peter himself [and the apostles themselves]. Rather, he meant nothing other than the holders of the seat of St. Peter, that is, Rome, [and the holders of the seats of the apostles]. (1)
Theodore goes on to write how when the heresy of Arianism (the denial of Christ’s divinity) arose, the Church commenced the Council of Nicaea to combat it; when Nestorianism (the denial that God became flesh in Mary’s womb) arose, the Church of Rome commanded the Council of Ephesus. (2) Islam intrinsically coincides with both of these heresies, in that it rejects Christ’s divinity, and the Incarnation of God in Mary’s womb.
Since the Church of Rome was the one that first commenced the two councils that went against these two false doctrines and their followers, it is therefore impossible that the Catholic Church would then turn around and create a heresy that upholds them and desires to kill the very people (Catholics) who were adverse to these heresies.
Council of Ephesus
John the Deacon, an ancient Catholic theologian who had direct access to the material of Theodore Abu Qurrah, declares the primacy of St. Peter’s See, deems Muslims as enemies to the Church, and then describes how the bishop Theodore wrote against the heresies of Islam:
And because the Lord had promised Peter, the chief of the apostolic choir, that he would lay the church’s foundation on the unshaken rock of his confession, and because he had assured the church that she would overcome the gates of hell, so the opponents of God, up to the present, struggles against the church. …I am speaking of the most blessed and most philosophical bishop of Haran in Coele Syria, Theodore. In his writings, which were truly inspired by God, he worthily held up to public scorn the impious religion of the Agarenes [Muslims] and showed to all that it was worthy of complete derision. (3)
The Catholic Church preserved and protected the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and in so doing it condemned and fought against Islam more than any other institution in history (if you don’t believe me, read any detailed history book on the Crusades). The first Church leader to lead and organize a crusade against Islam was St. Pope Leo IV who, in the year 849, led a battle against Muslims who were trying to sack the Vatican.
Muslims and Catholics fighting
As soon as Arianism came about, the Church combated it; and when Islam arose, with its very Arian doctrine, the Church combated it. Catholicism’s war against Islam is a continuation of its war against Arianism. There is therefore no evidence or documentation to prove that the Catholic Church suddenly decided to invent an extension of the very doctrine it was bent on crushing and suppressing.
Council of Nicaea
Islam has its roots in Arian doctrines, not Catholicism; and yet many today wish to turn it round, and reverse this very historical fact. Constantine Porphyrogentinitus, the fourth emperor of the Byzantine Empire, wrote in the 10th century, in his Administrando Imperio, that
he [Muhammad] was believed because a certain Arain, who pretended to be a monk, testified falsely in his support for love of gain. (4)
John the Deacon also recounts an Arian origin to Islam:
The Saracens [Muslims] are intent and zealous to deny the divinity of the Word of God. On all sides, they array themselves against him, eager to show that he is neither God nor the Son of God. Indeed, it was only because their false prophet [Muhammad] was the disciple of an Arian that he gave them this godless and impious teaching. (5)
For the Catholic Church inventing Islam, we have no evidence. What we do have, however, are an abundance of ancient records of Catholics fighting Muslims, and Muslims striving to destroy Christendom and the Catholic Church, a goal which, to this day, they have not given up.
(1) Theodore Abu Qurrah, Discerning the True Church, B164, trans. John C. Lamoreaux*
(2) *Ibid, B165-B166*
(3) *Refutations of the Saracens by Theodore Abu Qurrah, the Bishop of Haran, as Reported by John the Deacon, GK86-88, trans. John C. Lamoreaux*
(4) *Constantine Porphyrogentinitus, De Administrando Imperio, 14, trans. R.J.H. Jenkins, brackets mine*
(5) *Refutations of the Saracens by Theodore Abu Qurrah, the Bishop of Haran, as Reported by John the Deacon, GKh118, trans. John C. Lamoreaux*
I think that is precisely why the RCC hasn't pronounced this dogma....yet. Because it would elevate Mary to an equal position of Christ. Give it time, a little more "tradition" and it will happen.
It's like 21st century Americans, who don't know jack chick about royal custom, assume that Mary being Queen means she is a monarch, a power-player, a dictator along the lines of Queen Elizabeth I.
Not at all. Jesus is King, she is Queen Mother: by relationship, not by, as it were, individual achievement. Not because she is wears a robe and a starry crown (although she DOES in the Great Sign of Revelation 12)(!) but because He, the Ultimate King, is her Son. And that's what you call the mother, when she is the mother of the king.
Everyone --- not just Mary --- needs to be a cooperator in Redemption, a cooperation which is totally subordinate to God, which is expressed very well by Paul:
Philippians 2:12-13 "Therefore, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed me, not only in my presence, but much more now in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure."
You have totally taken this out of context to attempt to justify a point.
"Co-Redemptrix" (which is not a dogma of the Church) is a term which, if it came into use, could have two different, even opposite senses: a true orthodox one, and a false heretical one.
It means the heretical one....it's why they said it goes beyond the text. At least they got that right.
The Orthodox one (like any Marian title, like "Blessed" -- or like the title the Angel Gabriel gave her, "Kecharitomene" ---)
You presume these are titles when they are not. The RCC has made them into titles.
Blessed is no where in caps in Luke except in Luke 1:42 where it is the first word in Elizabeth's greeting to Mary. It is in caps here because it's the first word in the sentence. No where else in the chapter is blessed in caps.
The base greek word is eulogeo which means to speak well of, I bless, pass, I am blessed. It is used 43 times in the NT in various ways. It is not a title.
Regarding "kecharitomene". In the text, unlike your post, this is not in caps. The base greek word, charitoo, means I favor, bestow freely on.
It is used twice in the NT. Here in Luke and in Ephesians 1:6. In both cases it is used to show God extending Himself to freely bestow grace (favor).
In the Greek it properly reads as "Greetings, you favored with grace."
The Greek for greetings is chairo. It means I rejoice, am glad, also a salutation: Hail.
would be a strictly subordinate and derivative meaning: Jesus is the unique and only Redeemer, being our incarnate Lord who died for us; Mary cooperated in His Incarnation; therefore she cooperated in the Redemption.
This is a huge leap of reading something into the text that isn't there. It sounds nice and pretty, but it isn't a concept found in the Bible. Mary's role in the birth of Christ and being His mom is well documented and agreed upon by all. But beyond that she plays no other role in our salvation or prayer life. There is nothing in the Bible about this. It is all made-up by the RCC.
His title means He is the Redeemer; hers means only that she played a role, she was a companion from beginning to end, she was a cooperator. ("Your own heart" said Simeon the Prophet, "A sword shall pierce.")
The role she played is clearly outlined in Luke. There are no false titles like Queen of Heaven, etc, given to Mary by Luke.
Quite the opposite would be a presumptuous assertion that she was or is Jesus' equal. She is not co-equal. Not Deity or Goddess or anything of the sort.
Just a creature, a handmaid really, who depends of God as her Savior.
This you actually got right. She was a sinner in need of salvation like the rest of us.
I think it's because of this likelihood of confusion between a true meaning and a false meaning --- that the Church has steered clear of attributing such a title.
No....they know exactly what they are saying. It would elevate Mary to an equal role of Christ. That's why they're not going there.....yet.
Maybe if Heaven were Great Britain this might apply.
The attempt to link the titles of king and queen into Heaven just is not in the New Testament account or meaning....anywhere.
When John was given a glimpse into Heaven he saw the Throne and the One sitted upon it and the One standing by the throne. He saw elders and saints, etc, but no Mary standing by Christ which is where one would assume the "queen" to be.
Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you. Blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.
Amen.
theBuckwheat:
I understand you came to your own conclusion by reading the scriptures. That is fine and dandy. However, have you ever asked yourself the question, what if my conclusion is wrong? There are tons of theologians who read the same scriptures you read, and read them a heck of long time ago before either of us read them, and were instrumental in determining what the Church would recognize as the NT canon [guided by the Holy Spirit]. As for Sabbath changed to Sunday, or you Jewish? or Christian, Jesus, Christ, the 2nd person of the Most Holy Trinity, eternally begotten of God Father, True God and True man, who was incarnate of the Most Holy Virgin Mary, suffered died under Pontius Pilate, rose again from the dead on Sunday [The first day of the Week, which is accounted for in the Gospels]. The Acts of the Apostles, in several places, clearly indicates that the early Christian community celebrated Christ Resurrection ad the day when they gathered to break bread [celebrate the eucharist, Acts 2:20, Acts 20:7].
LOL. What should be more important is who the Ark bearers were praying to?
Are they spiritual leaders? If not, it might be helpful if you remember that Jesus said his kingdom is not part of this world.
In order for your assertion that Catholics worship Mary and the saints, and statues of Mary and the saints, the following would have to be true:
All the Fathers of the Church would have to be liars, publicly condemning idolatry, while secretly practicing and promoting it.
EVERY Papal and Vatican document ever published on the subject about veneration of Mary and the saints would have to be 100% lies—publicly condemning idolatry, while the secret approval of idolatry would have to be spread throughout the Church through some sort of secret channels—spread to every practicing Catholic, yet totally lost to history.
EVERY—EVERY—EVERY catechism and instructional book ever published in the Catholic Church, those used for the teaching of children, adults, converts, etc.—ALL of which explain the sin of idolatry and condemn it—would have to be lies, while the “real” teaching of the Church would have to be spread SECRETLY to a billion people, teaching them to commit idolatry. And these billion people would all have to be in on the “secret” AND these billion people would have to keep this “secret,” AND these billion people would have to be 100% committed to lying about this “secret” teaching to all the other people of the earth.
Catholics are “defensive” about their adoration of Mary and the saints?
Protestants kidnap and eat Catholic babies. Whenever I bring this up to Protestants, they get very defensive about it.
bkmk
LOL
It is a teaching of the Catholic Church that Mary was conceived without Original Sin (the Immaculate Conception) and remained sinless throughout her life.
She was the only human born of two human parents in history to be entirely sinless.
The OT presents a comprehensive set of prophecies and prefigurings of Jesus, all through the pages of the Hebrew Scriptures. Jesus Himself said (Luke 24:17) that these things refer to Him. If the books of Moses, the Psalms and all the Prophets refer to Him, they refer also to the people and events around Him.
Mary is explicitly presented as Queen in Revelation 12. It is she who is clothed with the sun, standing on the moon, wearing a crown of 12 stars. (You had some other Biblical Queen in mind?) She is portrayed as giving birth to a son who will "rule the nations" (you had some other King in mind?) and she is also portrayed as being concerned for all her offspring, "those who keep the commandments, and hold fast to the testimony of Jesus": that would be us --- including you and me ---assuming we keep the commandments and have faith in Christ.
So you not only have Jesus as your personal savior, you have Mary as your personal mother.
And where would you assume a Queen to be? You're Biblically correct about the "right hand" part:
Psalm 45:9
daughters of kings are among Your ladies of honour; at Your right hand stands the queen in gold of Ophir.
and...
1 Kings 2:19
So Bathsheba went to King Solomon, to speak to him on behalf of Adonijah. The king rose to meet her, and bowed down to her; then he sat on his throne, and had a throne brought for the king’s mother, and she sat on his right.
The Biblical commandment says that we are to honor our father and our mother. Solomon demonstrated how a good King's mother is to be treated. Do you think that Jesus would fall short of the standards of His predecessors, or would show less honor to His own Mother?
It is demeaning to Jesus to suppose that He would fulfill the commandments or courtesies less regally than Solomon did.
Yes, it does. Blatant idolatry at its worst!
You know what's even more hideous?
The so-called "Queen of England" is accepting that worship! It's BLASPHEMY!!!!
She was the only human born of two human parents in history to be entirely sinless.
If Mary was sinless why does she need a Savior? She is now in par with Jesus in this regard.
Second, her dad was not earthly.
I never said she didn’t need a Savior.
But, now that you bring it up, perhaps having been judged worthy to be the mother of Jesus, and sinless, she in fact did not need a Savior.
And, why do you say her father, Saint Joachim, was not earthly?
Mary is explicitly presented as Queen in Revelation 12. It is she who is clothed with the sun, standing on the moon, wearing a crown of 12 stars. (You had some other Biblical Queen in mind?) She is portrayed as giving birth to a son who will "rule the nations" (you had some other King in mind?) and she is also portrayed as being concerned for all her offspring, "those who keep the commandments, and hold fast to the testimony of Jesus": that would be us --- including you and me ---assuming we keep the commandments and have faith in Christ.
There are others who interprest this chapter in revelation that the woman represents Israel. Notice in verse 5 it specifically mentions her child was snatched up to God and to his throne. No mention of the woman being snatched up.
We also have the time period times, times and a half which is suggestive of the first half of the tribulation.
No where in this text is "Mary" portrayed as caring for "all her offspring" if you are meaning that phrase to be Christians.
It is clear that this passage is about Jesus. Again, the woman is most likely Israel due to the 12 stars representing the 12 tribes of Israel.
So you not only have Jesus as your personal savior, you have Mary as your personal mother.
Again, there is nothing in the Bible showing Mary to be our personal mother. This sounds nice and thoughtful, but is not Biblical and could be considered hertical.
A personal Savior is very sufficient for all of our needs. It amazes me that catholics do not consider the death, burial, resurrection of Christ to be all sufficent for their needs. Ya'll somehow have to have somebody else in Heaven interceding for you when the Bible clearly says that the Holy Spirit and Jesus are doing this for us already.
And where would you assume a Queen to be? You're Biblically correct about the "right hand" part:
Psalm 45:9 daughters of kings are among Your ladies of honour; at Your right hand stands the queen in gold of Ophir.
and...
1 Kings 2:19 So Bathsheba went to King Solomon, to speak to him on behalf of Adonijah. The king rose to meet her, and bowed down to her; then he sat on his throne, and had a throne brought for the king’s mother, and she sat on his right.
The Biblical commandment says that we are to honor our father and our mother. Solomon demonstrated how a good King's mother is to be treated. Do you think that Jesus would fall short of the standards of His predecessors, or would show less honor to His own Mother?
It is demeaning to Jesus to suppose that He would fulfill the commandments or courtesies less regally than Solomon did.
Now you are practicing eisegesis....reading something into the text that isn't there. It is attempting to use allegory to support something that is not in the text. This is the most dangerous of all types of interpretation as it leads to false doctrines....like we're discussing today.
If you are sinless, why do you need a Savior??
But, now that you bring it up, perhaps having been judged worthy to be the mother of Jesus, and sinless, she in fact did not need a Savior.
She was not sinless. That would be a contradiction of Romans 3:23. The RCC claims their "sacred tradition" doesn't contradict Scripture. Someone is in error. Either the Bible or the RCC. I'm saying the RCC is in error.
And, why do you say her father, Saint Joachim, was not earthly?
My error...I was thinking of Christ.
But now that you bring this up....not sure why you are calling Joachim Saint....afterall, we are all saints if we are followers of Christ. This is another made-up title to separate people by the RCC. The Bible clearly teaches all who follow Christ are saints.
This is another made-up title to separate people by the RCC.
You're reading too much into the issue, this one at least between Catholics and non-Catholics should be a nonstarter. The word "saint" is merely the English rendition of the word Santa which means Holy. Holy Cross, St. (aka Holy) Saviour, Holy Father, Holy Ghost, The Holy People of God (that's supposed to be us btw)... The saints in Heaven are merely the holy ones in Heaven, it's a matter of convenience to refer to those in Heaven as saints, it's not a Catholic conspiracy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.