Posted on 03/27/2015 1:04:17 PM PDT by Gamecock
And?
ROTFLMAO. A Prot trying to lecture a Catholic about his own religion.
If you truly understood Catholicism, you would be a Catholic.
841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."330
Sounds official to me.
It’s not ex cathedra, so it not binding on anyone. The statement you highlighted is heresy.
You seem to ignore the numerous posts about the limitations of “papal infallibility”.
Ughh. Must I repeat myself?
>>There are numerous Catholic Catechisms, all them good up through the Baltimore Catechism.<<
>>Any catechism since then is worthless. The first publication of JP II’s catechism had to be quickly recalled because of the obvious heresy it contained. The less obvious heresy is still in the latest version.<<
Yet, you turn around a quote a catechism that I just recommended you ignore.
Official? Official according to whom? You?
If that isn’t the official Catholic website, please show me which one is.
No, they do not.
They follow the old law[...]
No, they most certainly do not.
There is none. And why would you care?
Where is your “church”’s official website?
Yes
ALLAH HAD NO SON!
Q. E. D.
No. If you truly understood God, you would be neither.
What a waste of time reading. Those are the worst Bible verse supports ever. Very weak.
Then explain to me and lurkers who owns the website titled The Holy See.
And why would you care?
1.Because you are denying your own Catechism is found on that site.
2. Because your Catechism makes the claim that you and Muslims worship the same God.
3. Because that is the topic.
Where is your “church”’s official website?
If I may quote you, why would you care? My church isn't claiming that we are worshiping the same God as Muslims. Your faith group does, right there on it's official web site.
That is quite apparent to most here, except to Rome.
The Vatican did not even formally recognize Israel until 1993. A bit late.
Until 1948 the Pope was motivated by the traditional Vatican opposition to Zionism. Vatican opposition to a Jewish homeland stemmed largely from theological doctrines regarding Judaism.[40] In 1904, the Zionist leader Theodor Herzl obtained an audience with Pope Pius X in the hope of persuading the pontiff to support the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. The pope's response was: "Non possumus"--"We cannot." In 1917, Pius X's successor, Pope Benedict XV, equally refused to support any concept for a Jewish state. Minerbi writes that when a League of Nations mandate were being proposed for Palestine, the Vatican was disturbed by the prospect of a (Protestant) British mandate over the Holy Land, but a Jewish state was anathema to it.[27][41]
On 22 June 1943, Amleto Giovanni Cicognani, the Apostolic Delegate to Washington D.C. wrote to US President Franklin Roosevelt, asking him to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. ...
If the greater part of Palestine is given to the Jewish people, this would be a severe blow to the religious attachment of Catholics to this land. To have the Jewish people in the majority would be to interfere with the peaceful exercise of these rights in the Holy Land already vested in Catholics.
It is true that at one time Palestine was inhabited by the Hebrew Race, but there is no axiom in history to substantiate the necessity of a people returning to a country they left nineteen centuries before.[42]
The Vatican view of the Near East was dominated by a Cold War perception that Arab Muslims are conservative but religious, whereas Israeli Zionists are modernist but atheists. The Vatican's then Foreign Minister, Domenico Tardini (without being even a bishop, but a close collaborator of Pius XII) said to the French ambassador in November 1957, according to an Israeli diplomatic dispatch from Rome to Jerusalem:
"I have always been of the opinion that there never was an overriding reason for this state to be established. It was the fault of the western states. Its existence is an inherent risk factor for war in the Middle East. Now, Israel exists, and there is certainly no way to destroy it, but every day we pay the price of this error."[45]
by initially siding with Palestinian claims for compensations on political, social and financial levels, the Vatican shaped its Middle Eastern policy since 1948 upon two pillars. One was based on political and theological reservations against Zionism,... the Holy See has also maintained reservations of its own. The more established the Zionist Yishuv became in Mandatory Palestine, the more political reservations the Vatican added to its initial theological inhibitions.[51]
On 26 May 1955, when the Israeli Philharmonic Orchestra performed Beethoven's Seventh Symphony at the Vatican as an act of respect for Pius XII, the Vatican still refrained from mentioning the name of the State, preferring instead to describe the orchestra as a collection of "Jewish musicians of fourteen different nationalities."[53]
Paul VI was Pope from 21 June 1963 to 6 August 1978. He strongly defended inter-religious dialogue in the spirit of Nostra Aetate. He was also the first Pope to mention the Palestinian people by name...On 15 January 1973, the Pope met Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir at the Vatican, which was the first meeting between a Pope and an Israeli Prime Minister. At the meeting, the Pope brought up the issues of peace in the Middle East, refugees and the status of the holy places, but no agreement was reached.[58] According to Meir's own account of the meeting, the Pope criticized the Israeli government for its treatment of the Palestinians, and she said in reply: Your Holiness, do you know what my earliest memory is? A pogrom in Kiev. When we were merciful and when we had no homeland and when we were weak, we were led to the gas chambers.[59]
Relations since 1993[edit]
The opening towards the State of Israel by the Vatican was partially a result of Israel's effective control over the entire Holy City since 1967. This forced the Vatican to introduce a pragmatic dimension to its well-known declaratory policy of political denial. Hence, since 1967, Vatican diplomacy vis-à-vis Israel began to waver between two parameters:
- A policy of strict and consequent non-recognition of Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem, far beyond the usual interpretation of international law, as the Holy See still embraces its own ideas regarding the special status of Jerusalem.
- A pragmatic policy, through which Catholic interests can best be served by having a working relationship with the party who exercises effective authority and control in Jerusalem.
The establishment of full diplomatic relations in 1993–94, on the other hand, was a belated political consequence of the theological change towards Judaism as reflected in Nostra Aetate. It was also a result of the new political reality, which began with the Madrid COnference and later continued with the Oslo peace process, after which the Vatican could not continue to ignore a State that even the Palestinians had initiated formal relations with.
Pope Benedict XVI has declared that he wishes to maintain a positive Christian-Jewish and Vatican-Israel relationship. Indeed, on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the Jewish state, Benedict stated: "The Holy See joins you in giving thanks to the Lord that the aspirations of the Jewish people for a home in the land of their fathers have been fulfilled,"[72] which may be seen as a theological justification of the return of the Jewish People to Israel – indeed, an acceptance that has placed all previous Catholic denials of Zionism in the shade. On the other hand, he has also stressed the political neutrality of the Holy See in internal Mideast conflicts. Like John Paul II, he was disappointed by the non-resolution of the 1993 Fundamental Accord; and like his predecessor, he also expressed support for a Palestinian state alongside Israel. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_See%E2%80%93Israel_relations
In addition, "friendlier" now means not simply affirming Jews and the right to live in peace but also means affirming that Muslims worship the same God as Jews and Christians, which is blasphemous. For with Allah, we are not dealing with an utterly ambiguous "unknown god" as in Acts 17, which had no express revelation and could said to be the true God they were looking for. But Allah is as much a distinct God as that of Mormonism, and which even more than that false deity has skewed Biblical stories besides adding its own, and denied the very essence of the gospel, that of the Divine Son of God procuring salvation with His own sinless shed blood! Yet again and again popes comfort Muslims by assuring them they have the true God, while any gospel is scan and is replaced by platitudes for peace.
together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.” - Lumen Gentium 16, November 21, 1964
For they,
worship the same God as Catholics, "the one, living and subsistent, merciful and almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth," and "strive to submit themselves without reserve to the hidden decrees of God, just as Abraham submitted himself to God’s plan." -Second Vatican Council, Nostra Aetate 3, October 28, 1965
And,
We feel sure that as representatives of Islam, you join in our prayers to the Almighty, that he may grant all African believers the desire for pardon and reconciliation so often commended in the Gospels and in the Qur’an....
“Our pilgrimage to these holy places is not for purposes of prestige or power. It is a humble and ardent prayer for peace, through the intercession of the glorious protectors of Africa, who gave up their lives for love and for their belief. In recall the Catholic and Anglican Martyrs, We gladly recall also those confessors of the Muslim faith who were the first to suffer death, in the year 1848, for refusing to transgress the precepts of their religion.” - Paul VI, address to the Islamic communities of Uganda, August 1, 1969 [emp. mine.]
“I deliberately address you as brothers: that is certainly what we are, because we are members of the same human family, whose efforts, whether people realize it or not, tend toward God and the truth that comes from him. But we are especially brothers in God, who created us and whom we are trying to reach, in our own ways, through faith, prayer and worship, through the keeping of his law and through submission to his designs...
“Dear Muslims, my brothers: I would like to add that we Christians, just like you, seek the basis and model of mercy in God himself, the God to whom your Book gives the very beautiful name of al-Rahman, while the Bible calls him al-Rahum, the Merciful One.” - John Paul II, address to representatives of Muslims of the Philippines, February 20, 1981
“As Christians and Muslims, we encounter one another in faith in the one God, our Creator and guide, our just and merciful judge. - John Paul II, address to representatives of the Muslims of Belgium, May 19, 1985
We believe in the same God, the one God, the living God, the God who created the world and brings his creatures to their perfection...Both of us believe in one God, the only God, - John Paul II , address to the young Muslims of Morocco, August 19, 1985
Christians and Muslims, together with the followers of the Jewish religion, belong to what can be called ‘the tradition of Abraham.’..Our Creator and our final judge desires that we live together. Our God is a God of peace, who desires peace among those who live according to His commandments. Our God is the holy God who desires that those who call upon Him live in ways that are holy and upright. -John Paul II, address to Islamic leaders of Senegal, Dakar, February 22, 1992 -http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/interreligious/islam/vatican-council-and-papal-statements-on-islam.cfm
Of course it does, but which does not mean that there are not false gods, which there are, and which is why the V2 affirmation of Muslims as worshiping the same God as Catholics is perverse. The god of Islam is a distinctly different deity than that of the Bible, which Rome has chosen to affirm is that same God as that of Rome.
The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God , mankind's judge on the last day." ( Lumen Gentium 16, November 21, 1964: CCC 841; Emp. mine)
Yet as Catholicism departs from Scripture in so many basic ways then to some degree it may be said to worship a false god.
The best that you can do is to say that Catholics and Muslims have different understandings of the nature of God.
Wrong. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) (1 Corinthians 8:5)
The best that you can do is to say Rome affirmed a false god as being the true one, as V2 was a compromise document between liberals and traditional RCs, which the traditional RC sects at least recognize, if not the other errors of Rome.
Conservative Novus Ordo Catholics who object to the drastic changes call them "abuses" that result from the "misinterpretation" of Conciliar teachings. They point to many fine and orthodox statements in support of their contention. Those on the other hand who are on the forefront of the Revolution - the Liberal post-Conciliar Catholic - can justify almost anything they wish by recourse to the same documents.
"The definitive texts are for the most part compromise texts. On far too many occasions they juxtapose opposing viewpoints without establishing any genuine internal link between them. Thus every affirmation of the power of bishops is accompanied in a manner which is almost tedious by the insistence upon the authority of the Pope...
It is then the ambiguity of the Conciliar statements which allows for any interpretation one wishes. Yet despite this one, when one reads the documents as a whole, one finds there is a certain "animus" or spirit which is "offensive to pious ears". There is, as Cardinal Suenens has said, "an internal logic in Vatican II which in several cases has been grasped and acted on, showing in everyday practice the priority of life over law. The spirit behind the texts was stronger than the words themselves."[38] — VATICAN II Rama Coomaraswamy, M.D.; http://www.the-pope.com/wvat2tec.html
I hear Christians make this mistake all the time. They confuse what happened with Hagar and Ishmael as the separation between Judaism and Islam. It is not. Islam as a religion didn’t even come into existence until thousands of years after Ishmael was born. It is a religion that combines, plagiarizes, and borrows from Christianity, Judaism and Zoroastrianism. It is a religion that was born out of regional warring and politics. A truer statement would be to say it shares the same god with progressive liberalism. HA! The tactics of the two groups are not that fare apart, that is for sure.
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.