Islam, Protestantism and Divergence from Catholicism

Faith Magazine ^ | January-February 2007 | Francis Lynch

[RobbyS]

The last paragraph is interesting because That is not a far departure from the Catholic doctrine. Do you not distinguish between the spiritual and the mental or psychological? The spiritual is as real as the corporal and as much a cause as a blow to the head.

[GoLightly]

I use to think along those lines, but not now. The differences between the RCC and other Christian Sects is much greater than I originally believed. I think France is a good example, where the RCC supported a law making it illegal to evangelize.

The RCC had to make concessions to France a couple of centuries ago & they've been losing ground there ever since. Ceding any soul has such dire consequences in their belief, so I can't fault them for doing whatever they can to hold on to their members.

Even on the social issues where we line up as co-belligerants it is a mixed bag.

I agree, it is a mixed bag. I don't demand perfection.

IIRCC, in the last election the swing vote that put the RATS back in control of the legislative branch were RC's. The position of the RCC in the WOT has been nonexistent as well.

The GOP failed to earn a win. Their fiscal policies were disgraceful & that had a lot to do with people in the middle switching sides, especially since the Donks put blue dogs up in swing districts. The Church has skin in the game & their way is no longer the secular way.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

The error of the Roman belief in the Eucharist, as distinct from the Scriptural understanding of the Lord's Supper, is that the mass sacrifices Christ anew with every offering.

This is at the heart of the Reformation's complaint. Christ was sacrificed "once for all the sins of His sheep." To offer Him up again and again for every new sin committed erroneously means the sacrifice was somehow ineffective and incomplete. Salvation then wrongly becomes an endless ritual of sin, sacrifice, sin, sacrifice, sin, sacrifice...etc.

But that is not what Scripture tells us.

"For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:

Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;

For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation." -- Hebrews; 9:24-28

Thus the RC mass actually negates Christ's one-time, predestined, perfect and accomplished atonement for the sins of those He came to acquit.

Believers have been redeemed. The Lord's Supper is a spiritual commemoration of this joyous liberty in Christ; a sign and seal of His unmerited grace; a meal of remembrance and fellowship.

"Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,

This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus" -- Hebrews 10:9-19

For further reading...

CALVIN'S INSTITUTES:
OF THE POPISH MASS
How it not only profanes, but annihilates
the Lord's Supper

[Campion]

The idea of rituals that HAVE TO be performed in order to gain God's favor is something that Islam got from the prevalent religion of its day. It would not have gotten that idea from Protestantism. The idea that one doesn't know for sure until after one dies whether or not one has found favor with God is an idea that Islam got from the prevailing religion at the time of its birth

The "prevailing religion" in Arabia at the time of Mohammed was paganism, not Catholic Christianity.

And of the few Christians on the Arabian peninsula, many (perhaps most) of them were Nestorians or Monophysites, not Catholics.

[Campion]

The error of the Roman belief in the Eucharist, as distinct from the Scriptural understanding of the Lord's Supper, is that the mass sacrifices Christ anew with every offering.

That statement is a flat falsehood, and no Catholic who knows their faith will agree with it. By repeating it, you bear false witness against your neighbor.

And if, as I expect, you stubbornly insist that I believe what I absolutely and without reservation deny that I believe, I suggest that you take it up with my bishop, David Choby of the Diocese of Nashville. He can, if he agrees with you, rebuke me for my alleged "heresy".

I guarantee he will tell you that you are wrong.

This is at the heart of the Reformation's complaint.

Then "the heart of the Reformation's complaint" is a lie.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Then "the heart of the Reformation's complaint" is a lie.

We are free to disagree. If you read the link by Calvin, you'll see he makes a very strong case.

CALVIN'S INSTITUTES
Of the Popish mass
How it not only profanes, but annihilates the Lord's Supper

'...Let them now go and deny their idolatry when they exhibit the bread in their masses, that it may be adored for Christ. In vain do they talk of those promises of the presence of Christ, which, however they may be understood, were certainly not given that impure and profane men might form the body of Christ as often as they please, and for whatever abuse they please; but that believers, while, with religious observance, they follow the command of Christ in celebrating the Supper, might enjoy the true participation of it. ..."

[wmfights]

I agree, it is a mixed bag. I don't demand perfection.

I think you have an admirable desire to see them as allies, but as I have learned more and more about them and what they believe I am not so sure.

[Blogger]

The prevailing religion of Arabia at that time WAS indeed paganism, though Muhammad was well aware of the "people of the book", himself being a merchant who dealt with them with regularity (ever hear of the Roman trade roads?) Likewise, Islam did not grow up strictly in Arabia and the Koran was completely written (nor were the Muhammad's lifetime but after Muhammad's death. Certainly, by the time that it was ordered to be compiled by Uthman (who was assasinated in 656), Islam had had quite a bit of exposure to Catholicism.

Muhammad died in 632. During his lifetime, Islam began to be spread by the sword. By 640, they controlled both Syria and Palestine. By 642 they controlled Egypt. Certainly, you will agree that they were acquainted with Catholic Christians by this time. As mentioned, Uthman was assasinated in 656. Muslim civil war broke out called the Fitna. During the next hundred years the Hadith were written down, likely starting around 758 with the Abbasid dynasty. These Hadith are essential supplements and clarifications of the Koran for most Muslims. The Abbasids had defeated the Umayyad's at that time. The Umayyad's had invaded Spain in 711 BC finally being defeated at Tours in 732 after they attacked the Christians. All of the time being well acquainted with Roman Catholicism.

So, that brief history lesson shows that not only was Catholicims the "prevalent religion of its day, but that the Muslims were acquainted with it throughout their early spread.

Practices shared by the two religions are:
Prayer beads
Pilgrimages for favor from God
Repetitive Prayers
Devotion to Mary
Confirmation into the religion (for Muslims through recitation of the Shahada)
Spread often by the sword
Salvation by works plus faith
Lack of assurance of one's salvation
And, a history of persecution of the Jews (sorry, but it is a sad point of history)

As Vatican II stated:
The Church has also a high regard for the Muslims. They worship God, who is one, living and subsistent, merciful and almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has also spoken to men. They strive to submit themselves without reserve to the hidden decrees of God, just as Abraham submitted himself to God's plan, to whose faith Muslims eagerly link their own.

Although not acknowledging him as God, they venerate Jesus as a prophet, his virgin Mother they also honor, and even at times devoutly evoke. Further, they await the day of judgment and the reward of God following the resurrection of the dead. For this reason they highly esteem an upright life and worship God, especially by way of prayer, alms-deeds and fasting (Nostra Aetate, Vatican II).



And, as Pope John Paul II said to his Catholic audience in Turkey in 1985: "Christians [Meaning Catholics] and Muslims, we have many things in common as believers and as human beings....We believe in the same God, the one and only God, the living God...."

So. Study up on your history. You'll find some very interesting similarities between Roman Catholicism and Islam.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Terrific history lesson. Many thanks.

"Although not acknowledging him as God, they venerate Jesus as a prophet, his virgin Mother they also honor, and even at times devoutly evoked." -- Vatican II

Amazing. Apparently because Islam venerates Mary, Vatican II is willing to overlook or somehow temper its satanic demotion of Jesus Christ.

[steadfastconservative]

"Catholic" means universal. There is no "Roman" Catholic Church. That is the derogatory term which Protestants gave the Catholic Church after breaking away. The Church as always referred to herself as the Catholic Church.

[wmfights]

There is no "Roman" Catholic Church.

Call yourself anything you want, but the history of the RCC is anything but universal.

[Enosh]

It's mutated.

No doubt.

Here, have some popcorn.

[GoLightly]

What's your call on the over / under?

[Enosh]

"over / under?"

Sorry, I don't understand. I left this thread a couple days ago and haven't bothered to study all the posts.

[wimpycat]

Your posts #3 and #37 are the two best responses to this article.

[GoLightly]

One of the possible side bets one can make on a football game is the over / under. The odds makers set a number & if the combined score of both teams in a game is over or under that number, those that bet the correct direction win.

I never thought I'd see the movie thread go over 15K & I didn't tune in for the whole thing. Think the teams are too tired to take this one that high, so this one should have a set number much lower or do you think there's enough potential heat generated by the very selection of the original topic on this one to carry it on to similar heights?

[Enosh]

Gamble on if this should become an undead thread?

I imagine not. I'll place on red three.

(It's a Trinity thing.)

[Invincibly Ignorant]

yup I meant small c.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

I usually mean small c when I'm talking about the church.
Even Mormons fit into the small c. Ya'lls beliefs arent really that different.

[RobbyS]

The error of the Roman belief in the Eucharist, as distinct from the Scriptural understanding of the Lord's Supper, is that the mass sacrifices Christ anew with every offering.

No, you are in error. The Comprendium: Catechism of the Catholic Church says (280) The Eucharist is a memorial in the sense that it makes present and actual the sacrifice which Christ offered to the Father on the cross. once and for all on behalf of mankind. The sacrificial character of the Eucharist is manifested in the very words of institution{Luke 22:1920] The sacrifice of the cross and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one and the same sacrifice. The priest and the victim are the same[Christ] ; only the manner of offering is different; In a bloody manner on the cross, in an unbloody manner in the Eucharist. (281) In the Eucharist the sacrifice of Christ becomes also the sacrifice al of the members of his body. The liives of his faithful, their praise,their suffering, their prayers, their work are united to those of Christ.

The Protestant revolt began with a valid protest against the mechanical manner in which the mass was sacrificed, with private masses all too common, and with communion of the people a rare event. Hence a matter involving the priest alone, and he was sometimes so uneducated that he barely understood the words he was saying. But the real disagreement was doctrinal. Luther et al. started with a claim that false doctrine was being taught and then moved from there to deny the special right of the clergy to teach at all and claiming for themselves a superior right to do so. Belief and forms of worship being so closely related, the liurgy was then discarded along with the doctrine, with the revolutionaries claiming the right to worship in any manner they saw fit.