Mary a Meeting Point of Cultures, Says Muslim - Encourages Pilgrimages to Marian Shrines

Zenit News Agency ^ | June 29, 2006

[NYer]

ROME, JUNE 29, 2006 (Zenit.org).- An Egyptian Muslim and deputy director of a prominent Italian newspaper suggested that Mary could be the figure who brings Christians and Muslims together.

Magdi Allam of Il Corriere della Sera spoke to ZENIT about the appeal he launched in the pages of the national daily newspaper to Muslims living in Italy to visit the Marian shrines in their host country.

The journalist said that he is convinced that the Virgin Mary is a meeting point between Christians and Muslims.

"Mary is a figure present in the Koran, which dedicates an entire sura [chapter ed.n.] to her and mentions her some thirty times. In Muslim countries there are Marian shrines that are the object of veneration and pilgrimage by Christian and Muslim faithful," he said.

"Therefore, I believe that if this happens in Muslim countries, why can't it happen in a Christian country, especially in a historical phase in which we need to define symbols, values and figures that unite religions, spiritualities and cultures?" he asked.

In Allam's opinion, "the Marian pilgrimage of Loreto -- Italy's National Shrine -- could represent a moment of meeting and spiritual gathering between Muslims and Catholics, around Mary, a religious figure that is venerated by both religions."

Vittorio Messori, author of book-interviews with Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI), also wrote in Il Corriere della Sera on June 15 in support of Allam.

He said that the dialogue between Christians and Muslims "can begin afresh from Mary."

[Binghamton_native]

Check out post #267. The word 'cad' was used. I only had to use the Find function on my browser to find it.

[dollars_for_dogma]

So, we continue to disagree.

It appears that we do.

As a protestant convert to the Catholic faith I recall the difficulty that protestants have with John 6:51-58.

[Binghamton_native]

Actually, I wouldn't say I'm having any difficulty with the passage. I'm quite content with the description I posted.

[dollars_for_dogma]

I'm quite content with the description I posted.

Ok. It looked like someone else had written it.

[Binghamton_native]

Truth in advertising. I didn't mean to make you think I wrote it. I would normally indicate the author's name, but I don't know who wrote it. However, it did express better than I could my take on the passage.

[Binghamton_native]

What time zone are you in? I've gotta turn in or I'll have a tough time getting up in the morning.

Blessings.

[dollars_for_dogma]

Truth in advertising. I didn't mean to make you think I wrote it. I would normally indicate the author's name, but I don't know who wrote it. However, it did express better than I could my take on the passage.

Thanks for clarifying. I'll remember you in my prayers and hope you will do likewise for me.

[.30Carbine]

Just found on the Web:

The Noachide Laws - The Encyclopedia of Judaism

(1) Civil justice [the duty to establish a legal system];
(2) Prohibition of blasphemy [which includes the bearing of false witness];
(3) The abandonment of idolatry;
(4) The prohibition of incest [including adultery and other sexual offenses];
(5) The prohibition of murder;
(6) Also that of theft;
(7) The law against eating flesh [a limb] cut from a living animal [ie., cruelty in any shape or form] (T.B. Sanh. 56A)

The Talmud also states the penalty for disobedience:
"One additional element of greater severity is that violation of any one of the seven laws subjects the Noahide to capital punishment by decapitation. (Sanh. 57A)"
_________________________________________________________
As these are the Laws you claim to live by, and as I have demonstrated that you have blasphemed twice on this thread - first by saying no individual has assurance of salvation in Jesus Christ and I most definitely do, and second by saying no Fundamentalist Protestant cares a whit for Mary the mother of Jesus and this one does - I wonder that your Noachide brethren let you keep your head...

[Bainbridge]

According to Post # 267, those who " attack" Mary are Cads.(The definition of Cad is one who is morally reprehensible.) Should you decide to insist that the poster did not "specifically" say " you, Bainbridge, are a cad", then I will ignore you. .Do you realize that your first sentence includes the phrase " does so", like when kids say " does not, does so , nuh, uh...."etc. This is not a profitable exercise for me. These things have been at issue for a good while( look into the discussion of the term Theotokos from many different sources, for example, and see just what the philological and theological discussion has been all about). I have no animus toward Roman Catholics, but it is obvious that some react to any discussion of the role of Mary in Christianity with an inability to do anything but insult and act hysterical. You may not be one, but I for one cannot see a benefit from continuing on this thread as the entire point( the intersection of Marian veneration of RC and Moslems to further an understanding) has been lost.

[Zionist Conspirator]

As these are the Laws you claim to live by, and as I have demonstrated that you have blasphemed twice on this thread - first by saying no individual has assurance of salvation in Jesus Christ and I most definitely do,

I said that Catholics and Eastern Orthodox say that you have no assurance of salvation. I was elucidating the differences between liturgical and Fundamentalist Protestant chr*stians. Your argument is with the Catholics and Orthodox, not with me.

and second by saying no Fundamentalist Protestant cares a whit for Mary the mother of Jesus and this one does - I wonder that your Noachide brethren let you keep your head...

I poured my heart out on this thread to try to get Catholics and Orthodox chr*stians to stop looking down their noses at people like you and try to put themselves in your shoes for just a moment. You have rewarded me by accusing me of blasphemy. You're welcome!

The one thing all chr*stians, from the most "simple-minded" to the most "profound," share is an unquestioned belief that the truth of chr*stianity as the "fulfillment" of the "old testament" is self-evident. It is not. You can quote the "new testament" at someone from now until doomsday and will convict no one unless the person already believes it. Would a moslem convince you of the truth of islam by merely quoting the "holy qur'an" to you?

Your argument is obviously an antinomian one, that the only purpose of the Seven Laws, like those of the Torah, is to illustrate that all are worthy of death and in need of salvation by J*sus. Yet for fifteen hundred years chr*stians attended mass, counted rosary beads, confessed their sins, and prayed continually for the forgiveness of their sins which, according to you, were already forgiven. Before you argue with me about the validity of antinomian chr*stianity, perhaps you should first convince your fellow chr*stians. Until you do you have no business attacking the Seven Laws of Noach or the Holy Torah. All chr*stianity did for fifteen hundred years was replace one legal system with another, and added hell into the mix to boot.

I don't know why you are so hostile to me while millions of chr*stians around the world are denying "eternal security" and insisting that you are "naively imposing your own meaning onto the text." Why don't you argue with them?

[FJ290]

According to Post # 267, those who " attack" Mary are Cads.(The definition of Cad is one who is morally reprehensible.) Should you decide to insist that the poster did not "specifically" say " you, Bainbridge, are a cad", then I will ignore you. .

Binghamton_native pointed that out to me already. I did a Find search on my browser, but I somehow missed that. I searched every page of this thread too. Chalk it up to human error.

Do you realize that your first sentence includes the phrase " does so", like when kids say " does not, does so , nuh, uh...."etc. This is not a profitable exercise for me.

You denied that Theotokos meant Mother of God. You said in post #273 "as Theotokos( which of course means God-Bearer NOT Mother of God)." See how you capitalized the word "not" as if your statement was the final word on things? To which I replied, "Theotokos does so mean Mother of God." Then I followed that up with proof from a Greek Orthodox website. I was merely giving an alternate view from the Greek Orthodox for a Greek word. Besides, exactly what do you think God Bearer means? If she bore God that would make her the Mother of God.

For you to claim that I was using a kids games is a ludicrous statement. I didn't just say, "It does so" without any further explanation.

I have no animus toward Roman Catholics, but it is obvious that some react to any discussion of the role of Mary in Christianity with an inability to do anything but insult and act hysterical. You may not be one, but I for one cannot see a benefit from continuing on this thread as the entire point( the intersection of Marian veneration of RC and Moslems to further an understanding) has been lost.

Well, it has also been my experience that certain Protestants can't have a discussion with Catholics without insulting them and acting hysterical. I've seen quite a few discussions like that around here. It appears to be a problem that isn't unique to just Catholics.

[FJ290]

All chr*stianity did for fifteen hundred years was replace one legal system with another, and added hell into the mix to boot.

What? From the Jewish Encyclopedia:

It is assumed in general that sinners go to hell immediately after their death. The famous teacher Johanan b. Zakkai wept before his death because he did not know whether he would go to paradise or to hell (Ber. 28b). The pious go to paradise, and sinners to hell (B. M. 83b). To every individual is apportioned two shares, one in hell and one in paradise. At death, however, the righteous man's portion in hell is exchanged, so that he has two in heaven, while the reverse is true in the case of sinners (Ḥag. 15a). Hence it would have been better for the latter not to have lived at all (Yeb. 63b). They are cast into Gehenna to a depth commensurate with their sinfulness. They say: "Lord of the world, Thou hast done well; Paradise for the pious, Gehenna for the wicked" ('Er. 19a).

Gehenna

"The way of sinners is made plain with stones, and in their end is hell, and darkness, and pains." Ecclesiasticus 21:11

But yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, into the depth of the pit. Isaias 14:15

I could give many more examples from the OT. I think that's enough for now.

[Bainbridge]

When you said that no one had called anyone a cad or morally reprehensible you were incorrect. Would you have criticized them for doing so? Or where you just trying to
accuse me of lying?

Perhaps you are unaware of the depth and breadth of the "discussion" on the meaning of the term "Theotokos" that has gone on well for quite some time( originally used to identify heretics during the Nestorian controversy dealt with at the Ephesian council in 431 the term has been deliberated and reappraised for some 1500 years). To simply tell me that a Greek says it means so and so doesn't really work .

I find it is an excellent exercise to read apologetics and theology from many different Christian sources. I think it is most helpful in discerning truth from error.

Finally, yes I am sure there is generic rudeness by Protestants towards Catholics from time to time.
I was, however, identifying specific, particular (as in on his thread) examples of an overwrought, uncharitable attitude.

[FJ290]

When you said that no one had called anyone a cad or morally reprehensible you were incorrect. Would you have criticized them for doing so? Or where you just trying to accuse me of lying?

You need to read my post again. Here's what I said from post #278:

"I did not call you that nor did I see that anyone else did. Can you point to a particular post where someone specifically called you a cad or morally reprehensible."

I never accused you of lying. I asked you to point it out to me. Plus, the meaning of cad is not "morally reprehensible" if you want to get technical. According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary:

1 : an omnibus conductor 2 : a man who acts with deliberate disregard for another's feelings or rights

There have been many people who act with deliberate disregard to Catholic's feelings about Mary and about our RIGHTS to believe what we want to believe. God gave us free will just as He did you non-Catholics. That is not to say that you are guilty of that, but there are people who are guilty of that.

[Bainbridge]

Check the thread.I specifically addressed this with the Moderator. The RM replied. Read the post.

[Thorin]

You are correct about the meaning of "cad." I was thinking of Webster's second definition, which I think is an apt description of those who regularly attack Catholic beliefs and practices on this forum.

[Biggirl]

Thank-you for getting some info back to me. I have seen online the Maronite parishes websites and the I have noticed that the alter(s) is like the Latin rite's alter setup. I do know that in the majority of the Eastern Rite parishes that there is a special wall seperating the alter from the worshipers in the Divine Liturgy. But in the Maronite rite, the alter faces the people. Also I do know that the Maronite rite is the only Eastern rite that never left the Church and came back; it was always fathful to Rome. In other words, no Orthodox verson of this rite.